Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

See also: Chemistry talk page, {{Chembox}} (talk).

Requested move for Alpha hydroxy acid

An editor has requested for Alpha hydroxy acid to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Alpha hydroxy acid, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds

Hi all; I've been looking into the possibility of writing an article for potassium hypobromite, in an attempt to develop the coverage of salts containing bromine oxyanions, (in this case hypobromite), as more of these seem to have been studied besides sodium. I came across this source, Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds, [1], which seemed as if it could possibly help in writing about other salts, namely for calcium hypobromite among possibly others in the future. This would not be the only source used, as there'd naturally be others, but I ask mainly: is this source reliable?

I ask because this source was brought up during deletion discussions at WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium chlorate and WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium sulfite. I have no interest in writing about beryllium compounds fwiw, and these deletions were sound. The Encyclopedia of Alkaline Earth Compounds correctly identifies that "No article on beryllium sulfite can be found in scientific literature". However, Graeme Bartlett identified an issue with its coverage of "beryllium chlorate", which it referred to as a chlorite, and discusses it as a hydroxy compound. So I wanted to seek clarification about how useful it would be as a source. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I consider "Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds" as unreliable. Over the years I have seen dubious content or completely incorrect statements from it used as references here. Since it claims to be a textbook, it should be based on other references, even if they are not stated within. So check if they exist, particularly in German (Hypobromit). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

de.wp seems to be lacking in the development of de:Hypobromit. For the set of compounds I've been looking at, I've been able to find sources beyond just Ropp's Encyclopedia: [2] and others for potassium, [3] and others for calcium. I was just seeing whether this encyclopedia should be used for any referencing purposes, which I believe your answer is to avoid this one, which I shall. Is there anything redeemable from it or is it all caput? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I question whether many hypobromites (or in fact many other bromine oxyanions) would meet our notability criteria, meaning that you could find many quality first-world references, much less authoritative reviews. If you are looking for some project, I suspect that some topics could be suggested.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Most/nearly all are not practical for articles, as the set is highly unstable. There are some which have been the subject of quality sources, which is where my focus will be specifically. From the information I've found, 4 hypobromites and 2 bromites seem to be feasible for articles. (Non-exhaustive, but I only looked at potassium, calcium, strontium, and barium, de:Bariumbromit being one). My main query here was whether or not to make note of Ropp in the refs, and I'm now seeing that this ref should not be included anywhere. It seems to be scrubbed across all of Wikipedia: page history shows the ref deleted from articles to combat citogenesis such as [4], so I'll avoid as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It would still be useful to hear about notability. The example de:Bariumbromit is thin. Unstable and impractical compounds that are lightly cited = a theme that might not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, not to mention the efforts of someone capable of contributing to more compelling projects. Wikichemistry has a work list: Portal:Chemistry/Things you can do.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

On the note of other projects, I've also been interested in contributing towards some of the requested articles. Lithium ozonide looks particularly interesting, especially with Category:Ozonides having a light number of articles, so I may do that and tetramethylammonium ozonide while I'm on the topic, also from the requested list. On the chemicals-side of WP I've been doing a lot of wikilinking related compounds, filling a redlink if I see it often, or if its the only redlink on a page (barium bromite applies, on bromous acid's article).

@Smokefoot: The worklist is fairly open-ended and I don't think I'd be able to do much in the realm of needing an expert, merge/split proposals, etc. I can try some of the suggested copyediting, as that seems more my speed (raising the quality of articles from "poor" to "decent"). I enjoy writing and editing articles on binary & ternary compounds, in an attempt to have consistent coverage over a broad set of similar compound articles, so if there's anything in that realm I might also be interested in those types of tasks. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Musk ambrette

This redirect should be deleted, because there is no information about musk ambrette [5] in the redirect target. 162.23.30.19 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor: As a Simple Google search shows, musk ambrette is a plant-based substitute for animal musk in fragrances. Thus it is a valid search term for the Wikipedia article about the musk odor, as distinct from all the other articles which mention musk and are listed at Musk (disambiguation). It would therefore be better, IMO, to add some comment (with sources) to the article than to delete the redirect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The best option would be to write an article about musk ambrette. 162.23.30.19 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So go ahead. At first, it might just be a section within the existing target for the redirect, since the material is a plant-based substitute for the same odor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Musk ambrette appears to be a synthetic nitro musk, so I've added a mention of musk ambrette to the article synthetic musk and changed the target of Musk ambrette to Synthetic musk#Nitro musks. Marbletan (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Participant lists

Not sure exactly why I am doing this chore, but I went through the participants list. I removed those users from the list who have been inactive for several years. I also set up an emeritus list to preserve the names of our fellow contributors. The two lists should be mutually exclusive, but there is some chaos especially in emeritus list. Other editors are welcome to dive it. Of course we have some users who are not on any list, even some notable ones like V8rik, Itub, and ProjectOsprey and others. I am unsure if we should add their names without their consent.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For my part, even when I joined back in 2012 it was apparent that this list was unmaintained, with plenty of editors on it having been inactive for years. Consequently, I never bothered signing it. I've no objected to being included - hard to argue that I don't spend time here.

In this day and age you might expect such things to be automated. I'm sure that websites with similar page-ranking pay more attention to their content creators. Reports bot used to track our active editors, up until about 2 years ago. I do not know why it stopped. Such a tool would be useful for identifying new editors and/or trouble makers. Project Osprey (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Harej stated that‎ WikiProject Directory apparently defunct on 30 November 2022‎. You could ask Harej or The Earwig about it if that list is useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mephedrone

Mephedrone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Best Available Techniques Reference Document

I found this on my travels and thought it might be a good reference to share. It's an account of how a range of compounds with a production above 20 kt/yr are made. Open-access, looks authoritative. Project Osprey (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some comments: great find by Project Osprey, thank ye gods for Europe (and damn UK for chickening out), and etc. Etc: a quick check shows that the document is pretty good at the chemistry, heavy, heavy emphasis on environmental & energy balance. Beautifully open access. Slight worries: authors of this doc are who? No PhD's, much less credentials. I guess the authors are aggregators of info in some sense. Some of the info provided is imperfect (e.g. Rh phosphines are not used for acetic acid by Monsanto process because MeI would gobble up PR3). I worry a little that safety-environmental-medical info might overwhelm our chem-info core mission. But again, open access source for info, hurrah!--Smokefoot (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the document most of the information was provided by industry, although it's obviously passed through many sets of hands on the way. As a result, it doesn't have references in the normal way. It's a tertiary source, so we could cite it directly if desired? The document has DOI and ISBN numbers, but annoyingly they don't resolve automatically with our cite-tool. It was made for the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB), hence the safety focus. Several compounds (i.e. styrene) have their own chapters, where all the commercial routes are explained in detail and compared with one another. You don't often see things presented in that depth. At 650 pages there is more detail here than we need, but that's not a bad starting point. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Zinc oxide

Zinc oxide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Reconrabbit 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate amount of historical information

How detailed should historical sections be in articles about chemicals? Most chemical sources don't seem to care, but I assume that at least the discoverer(s), a date, a link to the original publication and a description of the way of its discovery are the bare minimum, am I right? What about historical names and historical synthesis routes? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That all sounds good to include. But if it grows to over a page, then a separate history article would be due. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

IP editor: There is general guidance for chemicals at MOS:CHEM/Chemicals. My view is that we need reliable secondary sources but if we have them, we should use them. However, we certainly don't need to list all the possible names/code numbers for chemicals (ChemSpider and PubChem do these) nor every possible synthesis. History sections are worthwhile: I recently wrote an article about substructure search and found its history more interesting than the basic topic, mainly because I already knew about that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, you need to exercise judgement. What is "interesting" is hardly universal. In terms of history, some areas are very "clubby", and some editors use history to engage in WP:BOOSTERISM (e.g., overemphasizing institutions). Older organic chemists, those members of the Cult of RB Woodward, favor name dropping (and name reactions). To some extent, history sections are best written by citing an article ON the history of the compound/synthesis/chemist. Otherwise, a semi-long excursion based on an editor's reading of the literature trail becomes close to WP:OR. My two cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As of historical names, I don't indeed mean every single one in existence but only those relatively prominent, such as names coined by discoverers or major pre-Geneva names widely used in 18th-19th cc., e. g. trimethylene for cyclopropane.

As of sources, I struggle to understand you, could you please reword? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to understand the loose guidelines we follow. One specific thing that I was trying to say: one risks engaging in OR if one writes extensively (multiple sentences) on history without a source that discusses that history. So, if one were to discuss the history of cyclopropane, one would cite a source that analyzed that history. My other remark is snarky: organic chemists seem to focus on a pantheon (a collection of gods) of "pioneers", which is probably of little interest to most readers.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to Mike but let me respond to you as well: does a reference book from 1890s-1910s qualify as a suitable secondary source if it discusses the history? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

P. S. Let's say a history section goes like this: a certain compound was initially identified in a natural source by A in 18aa, who called it α; in 18bb, B reproduced A's research and extensively studied the compound, modifying the name to β, which is still occasionally used; it was first synthesized by C in 18cc, who also proposed a couple of possible structures for it; the discovery of certain type of reactions by D allowed his student E to determine which structure is correct in 18ee; the first industrial synthesis route, which was still used in China as of 2010, was developed by F and G in 19gg, and it was commercialized by Company H in 19hh. Assume that every claim is sourced but there's no single source describing all the history from the beginning to the end. Which combination of sources would suffice for such a compilation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.178.188.143 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

To reduce use of primary sources, you can use the information in later sources about the predecessors' work. Though check the earlier sources to confirm if reporting is accurate. Use reviews and textbooks if possible. I would think it would be WP:DUE to include this history. Problems occur when it is recent research, and writing is based on press releases from institutions which will puff up importance of the work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Who needs cyclohexadecane?

So, I have worked on creating cyclohexadecane, cyclopentadecane, and patch up cyclotetradecane only to notice that the notability of the latter is questioned. Now, I am thinking we could lump together large cycloalkanes into one page since their chemical personalities are so similar. My preliminary suggestion is that we do cycloC13 to C16 in one article.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support a unified article for the large cycloalkanes, which then links out to individual ones' articles that have enough to say to merit their own articles. As a model, we have higher alkane. But our cycloalkane article is not very large and already does cover some unifying themes of the larger rings, such as strain (section could be expanded) and has a list up through C10 (could be expanded to for example 20 easily). Is there enough to say about "large cycloalkanes" to merit more than a section in the cycloalkanes article? DMacks (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed 11-year old notability tag from cyclotetradecane as there are many publications on this substance. Quite a few on its structure. It appears to be produced by some plants and is found in coal tar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please add these interesting details to the article? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I extended Cycloalkane#Table of cycloalkanes to C20, pulling the key physical properties from each bluelinked chemical's infobox. Pretty suspicious that three have the same density. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Only 2 now. I've updated the values using ones from ECHA REACH registrations (where available). The EU do a good job with this because they collect fresh physical data on compounds when they register them - rather than reaching for ancient and much recycled literature values. Those remaining values of 0.790 look at bit suspect. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the refs! I updated the two compounds' articles to sync with those new values you found. DMacks (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of listing a boiling point at arbitrary vacuum? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Distillation. Project Osprey (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but in a table you can't compare b. p. at one pressure with b. p. at another 5.178.188.143 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I read the quesion as a concern that some of the bp do not have pressure listed, and if the pressure isn't known, the temperature is not meaningful. In response, it's usually assumed that pressure is atmospheric unless otherwise stated. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a similar table for cycloalkenes would be useful! 5.178.188.143 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing CAS RNs

Does anyone here has access to SciFinder to check whether the following substances have a CAS RN?

• CDD-2807
• Lolamicin
• Astatine bromide
• Sodium astatide
• Radium azide
• Neptunium(IV) phosphide

162.23.30.53 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked PubChem, which is a good source for those like me who don't have direct SciFinder access. It has lolamicin as CAS 2930690-12-1 but none of the others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the CAS numbers for all but CDD-2807 which doesn't currently have an assigned CAS number. Marbletan (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Move Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines?

Hello. I recently proposed moving Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines. I initiated the request as a speedy rename as I thought the justification was decent and it would be uncontroversial. However, the move request was opposed and moved to full discussion. It's been about a month since and there's been no discussion. So I'm requesting feedback here. The reasoning for the move and discussion can be found at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Opposed speedy move request. Thanks! – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_24#Category:Substituted_amphetamines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Azaborine

There is a new draft at Draft:Azaborine, it seems to me, as a non-chemist, that the first reference in the draft is a review article, so would count as establishing wikipedia notability for the class. What do people in the project think? Newystats (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears to meet the threshold. The same names reoccur fairly often in the references (Liu, S. Y. is in 11 out of 29, 38%) but this might just reflect the small size of the azaborine research community. Practically the entire content appeared in a single edit, which was also User:Gmvalt's first edit - that screams 'copy and paste from a PhD thesis' to me. I can't be too critical, as that's how I started. The topic is highly esoteric, so it's liable to sit there for years without changing - but we have a lot of that sort of stuff. Ensuring that it doesn't end up as an orphan might be tricky. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead has two instances of "unique" and one of "unprecedented", suggesting writing that fails WP:NPOV but the notability is not in doubt given the long history and the reliable references. There are multiple shortcomings in the formatting, e.g. use of bolding, the use of journal abbreviations, and the way that the doi have been linked but all that can be fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There might be good content inside that draft, but to me the article is too detailed and non-encyclopedic. No secondary references. It is the homework of some grad student striving to satisfy their instructor vs satisfying Wikipedia. It would be helpful if the instructor and students knew just how much work is required to repair their contribtuions. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for mentioning me. I did write this as part of a course in graduate school, but I have had an interest in this topic for several years since I first came across the research. I've brought this subject up to several industry chemists and they all thought it was very interesting as well. I've found very few secondary sources, but there are multiple reviews ( think I only cited one or two). I can add those review details and add more to contextualize each of the sections. I also need to add more about the uses and functions. Gmvalt (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gmvalt: The question is whether you are trying to show off (we assume not) or trying to help the mission of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not want granular summary of all factoids and references. For that kind of writing, some scientific review journal is more appropriate! We want an overview. If a primary ref is covered by a review, then cite the darned review and omit the primary ref (usually). Other suggestions:

1. do not number the figures or compounds. The article will change with time (kinda the point of Wikipedia), and numbering systems quickly become obsolete or even a hindrance.
2. minimize or avoid words in graphics (which are otherwise good), so that these figures could be used by other language Wikis. Try to put the words in the captions.
3. minimize the shout-outs to various research groups. People are reading for content, not for the PI's.
4. "recent" and similar words become stale quickly. Writing for Wikipedia differs from technical writing. You might try to communicate some of this correspondence back to the mothership.
5. Finally and most importantly, thank you for your contribution. Overly detailed, imperfectly curated content is far, far better than nothing.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

   Hello. That all makes sense. I guess I was writing about what I thought would be the most interesting and useful to someone.

   I don't have any affiliation to the groups mentioned, I just thought that touching on the progession of these compounds and relating it back to literature would be helpful for the reader.

   I need to go through and read this again with fresh eyes. After that, I think I can tone done the technicality of it.

   To your first point, I dont think there is really anything flashy about doing this. I did it just because I know my past self would have had fun being shown a page about this subject. However, I read nearly exclusively technical texts now, so maybe I that has crept into my writing.

   Thank you for your hard work and feedback. I know y'all have several pages talking about how to make Wikipedia pages, but maybe having one geared towards writing articles about technical topics like this would make your life easier. There are multiple classes in US grad programs that have Wikipedia articles as projects. Having dos and don'ts that are more specific to these types of articles might help. Although these might cater to people with atleast a degree in chemistry, I think that is still a pretty broad audience that benefits. 192.54.222.154 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As to reading any instructions, I am pretty sure you know how to construct or edit here. The main issue is your understanding of scope. I mean, here you have semi-expert chemists wondering if your draft is even salvageable because it is so specialized. One intermediary approach would be to write a few sentences and stick them as a section into our article on boratabenzene or on borabenzene, which ever one is more relevant.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

3DMET database dead?

In edit this edit], User:Graeme Bartlett says that 3dmet is dead. Indeed, links such as [6] are timing out for me also. Anyone know if this is a transient problem or else if we should remove this infobox item across the wiki? DMacks (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

3DMet has been dead for years now. So I have not been able to confirm any values to add. Since it is dead, our 3dmet links are no longer useful. So I was thinking that I would remove the parameters when I come across them in the chembox. My current effort is to add missing ChemSpider entries. But as I go I might add other values or change wikidata link if wrong, (or remove 3DMet). Back in 2018 I contacted Miki Maeda from National Agriculture and Food Research Organization about 3DMet, But I have not done that since the recent multiyear outage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like we should turn off its display ASAP (no sense giving readers a broken link). And also set up an editorial note and hidden tracking category for its use (445 pages, by a quick heuristic). Eventually a bot could simply remove them, but for now at least we'll be aware of it when we edit or if someone gets bored and wants to gnome it. DMacks (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick and easily-reversible turn-off of the display,[7] pending stronger consensus for removing it as a supported template field altogether. DMacks (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Esters § I don't like this template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Esters § I don't like this template. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)