Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 52

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be adding content from new issues of Science and similar journals. "Researchers have found ..." "A recent study shows...". Check out recent changes in Monoterpene. The contributions are not awful, but IMHO, misguided in the sense that Wikipedia is a forum for settled knowledge and, ordinarily at least, we dont do news. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

. 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

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)

The following articles touch on big complicated themes:

• redox (page views: 1,340/day)
• reducing equivalent
  comment: it might be merged into reducing agent. (page views: 24/day)
• electron equivalent
  comment: see previous entry (page views: 4/day)
• reducing agent comment: would be useful to distinguish electron transfer kind of reduction vs hydride reduction and hydrogenation. (page views: 453/day)
• oxidizer redirects to oxidizing agent
  . But akin to reducing agent, we might distinguish O-atom transfer from electron transfer. My guess is that many nontechnical readers are more interested in oxidizers from the safety perspective and not so keen on organic syn. (page views: 681/day)
• redox potential
  (page views: 6/day)
• hydride seems ok but covers a lot of territory. (page views: 196/day)
• hydride reducing agents, readers would probably benefit from such an article listing the main borohydrides and various aluminum hydrides. Almost a disambiguation article. Maybe one exists and I missed it.
• Organic redox reaction comment: scope is murky (page views 63/day)
• one-electron reduction was recently merged into redox
• partial oxidation comment: seems to be mainly oxygenation reactions, stopping short of full combustion. (page views: 23/day)

Probably more articles on this theme exist.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Herravondure is removing orphan tags on articles with the edit note "Successfully de-orphaned" but no links are being created, so not so successful.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What articles are you referring to? I do deorphan articles, and if I did that to one with nothing linking to it that was my bad, but I am not doing this intentionally. Herravondure (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Related point: Regardless if they're manually tagged or not, orphan pages are detected and listed by bots, in this project there are [211 pages] at present. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to know how often that page updates? Herravondure (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It would appear to auto-update weekly. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably someone with tools should revert most of User:Herravondure's edits.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Many of the recent chemistry links seem to be coming from Glossary of chemical formulae. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, many articles are listed as removed from orphanage, but the editor is not adding the links that would de-orphanize. The editor is simply removing tags. Nothing is being done.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but when you de-orphan, you're adding links to that page from other pages. The only edit you make to the de-orphaned page is to remove the tag. That's what I'm seeing, lots of link were made from Glossary of chemical formulae to a load of orphaned articles, which had then been de-tagged. --Project Osprey (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Question for Herravondure: what article links back to Fructose-asparagine that was recently detagged? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's probably the article Smokefoot found. I have been adding chemical orphans that I have failed to deorphan thus far to the Glossary of chemical formulae article. I do them in small bunches, so I must have thought I added that one when I didn't. I have now added it to the glossary. Herravondure (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Useful links:

• Category:Alloys (71)
• {{Infobox material}} usage (33)

I originally posted this at the Teahouse, but upon advice of the venerable Mr Turnbull I have posted it here too.

Hi, I just noticed whilst browsing through List of named alloys that none of the alloys have infoboxes, and I'm sure it would be a useful idea. I just came here to ask two things, would it be useful (to create an infobox) and should I also make a navbox for alloys? Thanks. My username is actually based off an alloy too! X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @X750, I saw your question at the Teahouse. Many alloy articles here and on other language Wikipedias use {{Infobox material}}. See 7075 aluminium alloy and Constantan. That infobox isn't able to include the components of the alloy, but that might be a place to start. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, StarryGrandma. I saw that infobox and I was actually going to use that as my substrate. What do you personally think should be included on the new template? Most of the fields are covered, but things such as composition are probably going to be one of them, similar to the chemical formula present on {{Infobox drug}}, but instead of a formula having the % ranges for each element present in said alloy. I was thinking a market names/alternate names section too for alloys such as inconel that have variations, a distinction between different types of alloy (e.g superalloy, nickel-chromium, etc), the UNS number, and that's all I can really think of. Cheers X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually nine of our articles about specific alloys do have chemboxes, but that is obviously a small minority. But I don't think that box (as it currently exists) is well-tailored to alloys because so much assumes a molecular or ionic substance. We would need a sentinal value for SMILES to avoid a diagnostic for having no SMILES. And we'd need to inhibit mol-wt even though there would be a stoichiometric-composition formula. We have a similar problem for polymers, where mol-wt is either for the repeating unit (that's especially mis-leading for non-alternating co-polymers) or the molecular formula and weight need some typical lengths or "n" coefficients (chembox doesn't have a standard for that). {{

ubl}} of the components rather than a "molecular formula" type of output? DMacks (talk

) 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct

ubl}}, as that's the easiest way I believe we can implement them. I haven't examined polymers so much, and I did not intend to use molecular formulas, weights, SMILES or anything of the sorts, just something akin to what's present at {{Infobox drug}}. For the database tokens, which is the UNS number, is there another internal system within Wikipedia that can categorise these things? I'm not too well-versed in the technical things (I do have experience with modules at Wiktionary if that's helpful at all), so I'd like some pointers as to what I should go about doing there. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris}

23:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Check out my hacking on ferrotungsten. Only reader-visible bug is that it should display a label of "Chemical composition" instead of "Chemical formula". It would be easy to implement a switch field that controls that output and also inhibits things that don't apply. Careful talking about drugbox, it includes essentially everything chembox does, and more. DMacks (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't have the expertise nor the motivation to implement such a switch, perhaps once I publish the template you could do a bit of fiddling in the sandbox of the respective template? As for drugbox, I just personally have more experience with it, as I've used it often to write articles about, well, drugs & antibiotics.X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to join in. I've worked on developing {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} templates, but I am no chemist.

Having read this, I suggest to expand {{Infobox material}} with a extra section (subheader) "Alloy", to appear in top ;-). It can contain alloy-specifics, such as composition. If I understand correctly, some parameters (properties) from eg {{Chembox}} could be added (please start hinting). As said, for the chemical details (parameter subtleties) I'll have to be educated. -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Started sandboxing {{Infobox material}} (/testcases). @DMacks: I saw ferrotungsten. I think a dedicated parameter(s) for alloys is preferable. Do you think we should pursue alloys-in-{{Chembox}}? Or IB materials? -DePiep (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear I should've read this sooner, DePiep check out User:X750/Infobox alloy for what I have so far.

If you have the time, a double-pronged approach can be done (i.e. you do you, me do me), and we can decide via consensus/vote of some sort which one we can roll with. Cheers X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Things happen. Preferably I don't work parallell=double. Apart from parameters you added to the IB-material (which?), what is the alloy feature you aimed at? (IMO, a dedicated section, in top, could handle the alloy specs nicely). -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I am still working on it! I'll ping you when I think it's almost ready for publishing. Understood point on working in parallel. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey DePiep, I've drafted up a testcase at User:X750/Infobox alloy/testcases, see what you think. I was also wondering, is there something we can change in the documentation so that units are automatically added? Although that would pose problems if people have a specific unit and need to convert them... can we put the convert template in there somehow too? Thanks X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 01:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, good to see. Question on content: what does the chem formula mean, for alloys? AFAIK, an alloy is not a compound, but more like a mixture. Does the formula need a clarification then?

About the presentation: I still think the alloy properties should be grouped under one subheader. For me, a layman reader, it makes things much more clear right away (for example, that UNS and SAE are alloy codes). The existing parameter |type= can stay (and get label "Material type"). Be as specific as possible, especially if its free!

Also, I think it can easily be an extension of current {{Infobox material}} (as I did in the sandbox). Makes maintenance of those parameters easier, and no conflicts foreseen. I'll add the parameters you added to that sandbox. See /testcases. -DePiep (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm leaning more and more towards simply expanding {{Infobox material}}. Also, as to your question as to chem formula, it's description in the doc simply says Chemical formula of the alloy (if listed), please hard-code with subscripts. Which means if the formula is listed, it can be added as it's a suggested parameter. And yes, I shall amend that label you have mentioned. I just have a singular question, at the {{Infobox material/testcases}}, you have put "T2 tool steel" under type, I presume that is a filler as is SAE999. I think we should also rename the subheader to "Alloy properties". Looks like it's coming together. I'll sort the navbox out, I've got experience with music group navboxes, and I'll simply follow the layout of something like {{Hydrides by group}}, with the groups probably shaping to be "non-ferrous", "ferrous", and under non-ferrous, probably division into nickel-based, aluminium-based, etc, and others. I'll be using Category:Alloys for the navbox too, so if you know any pages that might be missing just mosey on over & add it to the page. Sound good? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought: We have footnotes for a reason, we could simply explain it in the footnotes, or add something like chemical_formula_note. Quite obvious innit? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think the chem formula is a correct presentation, it's fine with me. (but, if it is a ratio like the percentages — not a compound, it is wrong). Anyway, we can proceed and improve later.

Yes I took some random data, eg 'T2 tool steel'. Just testing the parameters.

I've adjusted the /sandbox, see testcases.

The navbox is a different topic. I ignore that one for now here.

I strongly propose to make {{Infobox material/sandbox}} the proposed version, not your subpage (I've made some other needed changes in there already). I understand current version reflects all your proposals. So, publish? -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah that chemical formula thing, it's optional, we'll let the other editors include if they want to. I'll leave it blank when editing articles for the sake of not confusing readers. Yes, I will handle the navbox. You can brush that away.

Yes, to your proposal too, very pleased with how the testcases has turned out. Full steam ahead. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox material: changes

See: Infobox material/testcases

• Boldly added {{para|synonym, synonyms]]; changed label for |type= (live now)
• Alloy (in sandbox):

  |alloy type=

  |alloy composition=

See testcases. -DePiep (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• To consider:

  |UNS_identifier= for Unified numbering system

  |SAE identifier= for SAE steel grades

from OP. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

also applying comments by X750, above. -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Updated {{

) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for

Chemical oceanography

) 06:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

ECHA InfoCard

This isn't my area but I thought this might be something worth flagging.

) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The link is made in {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}. Heavily tied to wikidata ECHA Substance Infocard database (Q59911453) and its ID property. If the European Chemicals Agency article does not contain a good target, nor any other article, one wonders whether it is important. -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The

ECHA article is not very good (e.g. it has external links in the body of the text and few/no secondary sources). I'm happy to add it to my "to-do" list and at the same time create a subsection on the Infocard, which is a fairly useful part of the European regulatory system and gives Wikipedia a less US-centric view. Thanks, Le Deluge for highlighting this. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 16:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done The redirect now goes to a newly-created section of the article, which I'm continuing to improve. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

By Wikidata: the ECHA Infocard has no lang-wiki articles anywhere. The good news is: both chem templates here pull the ECHA ID from Wikidata, and so some 10k articles have this external Infocard ID+link. Data is well (mass-)maintained at WD, IIRC. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• See
  ECHA InfoCard. Good work. -DePiep (talk
  ) 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata datamodel

• For an update proposal, see WD:WP Chemistry # ECHA_Substance_Infocard: datamodel_check. @Le Deluge and Michael D. Turnbull: -DePiep (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A comment on Talk:Lysine#Wrong_3D_model just noted that he JSmol model for zwitterionic lysine is wrong! The molecule should be protonated on the epsilon amino group!. Could I get this double-checked by a chemist? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability I think this is debatable and I'm not sure how the issue should be resolved. The change needed to show the epsilon-protonated version instead of the alpha-protonated version is to alter the relevant Smiles to [NH3+]CCCCC(N)C(=O)[O-] instead of its current NCCCCC([NH3+])C(=O)[O-] in the Chembox. However, in most other amino acids the relevant Zwitterion is the alpha one (i.e. they don't have a second protonatable centre) and even in lysine the balance of protonation between the alpha and epsilon nitrogens will depend on factors such as their respective pK_a, the solvent and the temperature. On balance, I think my preference would be to remove the Zwitterion and the protonated Zwitterion from the Chembox altogether and add some comment about pK_a etc. (with reliable sources) to the body of the article or on Lysine (data page), if it is important to readers that this be discussed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. If we consider Lys only as a molecule isolated from biological systems (as the model does), then we can fairly reliably assume which amino group will be protonaned most of the time. The main factor that will change pK_as under this condition is the proximity of -COO^- group on the alpha carbon atom. This group has a -M effect. This means that electron density of alpha -NH₂ group will be slightly pulled towards it compared to epsilon -NH₂ group. As such, the lone pair on the epsilon -NH₂ group will be more able to bind to a proton. Epsilon group pK_a will be considerably higher than alpha group pK_a. And naturally, empiric evidence supports this claim -- please see a table of amino acid pK_a values, such as this. 37.221.242.34 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's a convincing argument even though the precise values in the linked URL don't quite match what our data page says. More significantly, all the interactive images in the article gave the wrong absolute stereochemistry for (S)-lysine, so I've changed them all. Please check and make sure everyone can be happy with the outcome. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch about the stereochemistry! It would be great if we could somehow document when SMILES is omitting that info (or better, as you did, actually include it). But your two "zwitterionic" forms have the carboxyl still protonoated. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Now corrected. That's why we need the

wisdom of crowds. Thanks DMacks. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 15:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what the shortest wikilink-following path is between swiss cheese model and mean free path :) DMacks (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that in the crystal structure of pure lysine, it's primarily the alpha amino group that's protonated, although there is a bit of H-atom disorder near one of the two epsilon amino groups: Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2015), 54, 3973-3977, CSD entry CUFFUG. The Chembox PNG images (File:Lysine-from-xtal-3D-bs-17.png and File:Lysine-from-xtal-3D-sf.png) reflect this. --Ben (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, I'll let you fight this out with the IP editor. This is well beyond my pay grade. At least you both now know how to alter the SMILES in the article to reflect whatever you decide is "the truth" (or "the most useful")! Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So glad that I referred this over to this group. Very interesting discussion! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've also updated the zwitterionic model for Arg, even though it took me three tries now it should be (more) correct. The main driving force here is of course the delocalization of the positive charge (even shown in a picture in the article); the discussed pKa difference is even greater. Hopefuly I didn't mess it up instead. 37.221.242.34 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The catch with many articles on amino acids is that the free amino acids are rare (I think, I have been looking for a source of occurrence of free amino acids). Some Wiki articles on amino acids actually discuss amino acid residues, but dont make that distinction clear. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that samples of the free amino acids may be rare but here we are discussing the substances/IDs and representations in the Chemboxes. I've now checked these for all proteinogenic amino acids to ensure, inter alia, that the Jmol depictions are accurate/useful and that we have more comprehensive IDs: L, D/L and D (in that order) in many cases. Arginine and aspartic acid) needed overhaul and careful updating — which I now believe to be correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

JSmol in infobox Chembox

Here the template background for {{Chembox}} having Jmol (or JSmol). In short: Jmol uses |SMILES=, but can be overwritten.

Jmol demos

Identifiers
Compounds A: Adenosine triphosphate (regular, default) F: Ferrocene (Jmol ≠ SMILES) L, zwi.: Lysine Zwitterion (bad Jmol by SMILES?) L(none): Lysine (JSmol=none)
3D model ( JSmol )	A: Interactive image F: Interactive image L, zwi.: Interactive image
SMILES A: O=P(O)(O)OP(=O)(O)OP(=O)(O)OC[C@H]3O[C@@H](n2cnc1c(ncnc12)N)[C@H](O)[C@@H]3O F: [CH-]1C=CC=C1.[CH-]1C=CC=C1.[Fe+2] L, zwi.: [NH3+]CCCCC([NH3+])C(=O)[O-] L(none): [NH3+]CCCCC([NH3+])C(=O)[O-]

• FYI: This is what {{Chembox}} can do with SMILES and Jmol. (The demo uses indexes 1-4, see code).

A Regular, default: Jmol reads SMILES and creates the interactive image at the external link Y

F Ferrocene: its SMILES is incorrect for 3D, |Jmol=(another SMILES) is fed an adjusted SMILES string → shows OK in 3D Y

L Lysine (Zwitterion): SMILES read by Jmol (default route), 3D image under discussion ?

L(none) Lysine Zwitterion: same SMILES but |Jmol=none → Jmol does not show for this one Y (no error)

Not done: possibly an adjusted SMILES string would show 3D correct in Jmol.

-DePiep (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've created a

23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have renamed it (and reviewed for copyright infringement). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very specialised stuff. It presumable needs links to and from premelting? Who was Hüttig? --Project Osprey (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Borax#Borax as mineral species --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I will set up a discussion akin the borax one above at Talk:Graphite#Graphite as mineral species. Quick reading of Greenwood and Earnshaw indicates that both mineral and synthetic graphite are widely used commercially. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors with good working chemistry knowledge might be useful in this discussion at WP:Fringe. It's a question of surprising chemistry claims being sourced to the editor's own papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chemical_energy_and_related_articles

ApLundell (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that here. I am the editor who started that discussion, and I don't know how to proceed at this point.

About 80 science/chemistry articles on Wikipedia currently include claims about the chemistry of oxygen that are nonsensical in the standard framework of chemistry, confusing, and potentially harmful.

These have been added by a single editor, backed up with references to a few papers by that same editor.

I've made a list of the problematic articles and edited a few; the editor who added the claims restored them.

The statements in question are, frankly, embarrassing to have on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any advice on how we can go about removing them. (If you think I'm the one who has a problem with perfectly good science here, I'd also appreciate a short note telling me that!)

IpseCustos (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

In relation to the ongoing discussion about whether oxygen is a "high-energy molecule", I've started drafting an

on "energy-rich species" or "high-energy species". The term appears to be in fairly wide use in introductory material, but I haven't been able to find a decent well-sourced definition of it. It's not quite a dicdef as usage varies and there are several similar terms; it's not quite equivalent to "unstable"; it doesn't really fit into "chemical energy".

I'm honestly undecided whether this article is a good idea. I thought the definition so obvious that spelling it out would be dictionary work, but of course the whole "high-energy oxygen" idea kind of demonstrates that it isn't.

Anyway, in order of preference, I'm asking for offers to take over the draft (yeah, right); opinions that the draft should be deleted (with or without reasons); or opinions that it should be kept and how to improve it. In particular, if anyone can remember a textbook or article that defines the term rigorously, I'd know where to continue looking.

IpseCustos (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Feels like

WP:NOR. Terms like 'high energy' or 'energy rich' are often used to describe materials, but there is no formal definition, which makes trying to write an encyclopaedia article on those terms fairly pointless. --Project Osprey (talk

) 14:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Project Osprey. On the other hand, we (Wiki-chem project) aim to have articles or redirects on commonly used terms. One possibility is to redirect "Energy-rich species" to Energetic materials, things like ammonium nitrate that blow up spontaneously. We could expand the article to include exergonic hydrolysis reactions. One problem with many energy-rich species is that their tendency to release energy depends on another reactant. Folks call ATP energy-rich, but only if it is contacted with water (or O2 and a spark).

BTW, an even more common chem-slang is

redox potential.--Smokefoot (talk

) 15:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that although there is no formal IUPAC definition for any of these terms, they are sufficiently often used that they form part of the jargon of (bio)chemistry. Thus Wikipedia would be improved by having an article along the lines that IpseCustos proposes and the current draft should be moved into Mainspace. I would be happy to add to it. It needs to have an explanation along the lines of the lead at thermodynamic free energy that in practice only changes in free energy are physically meaningful, so all reactants and products are relevant, with no single one really being the "energy rich" species. Those of us who have made nitrogen triiodide would nevertheless happily call it that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to edit mercilessly. I disagree that all reactants are relevant, but in the case of nitrogen triiodide it makes no difference as there is only one of them. IpseCustos (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The new article Xerosydryle has a sundry of scientific material in it but from what I see only one source even mentions the term and a quick google search came up with nothing on the term. Am I right in deducing that the article represents trying to establish a new term? If so, Wikipedia would not be the place for such an effort. So if an article by that name were not to survive, is there a recognized topic for the material in the article? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I labelled this as a hoax earlier, but that was contested by @Cranloa12n:. I think Wikipedia would be better off without this page. The topic is an invention by one person. Perhaps AFD is the way to go as there s some controversy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a hoax, as the lead text accumulated clumps of xerosydryle appear as a white-ish fluffy, dry substance, alone makes clear. Water is probably the most studied substance of all and "dry" water is a contradiction in terms. Let's not waste time on

WP:AFD. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 11:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it is a bit unfair to call the Wikipedia article a hoax.

WP:FRINGE publications, of which DOI:10.14294/WATER.2021.2 is the latest and most egregious (and introduces the neologism xerosydryle). That journal article is so way-out that it actually makes an interesting read as an object-lesson in bad chemistry! PROD is still the way to go for the moment, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 12:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Then should I use

PROD or {{db-hoax}}? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄

) 13:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave my "in progress" tag just to make sure that somebody doesn't accidentally pass it if the prod disappears. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Xerosydryle but I'm pretty sure that 'dry water' is a real thing. It's essentially large vesicles of water wrapped in a shell of hydrophobic fumed silica. The end result is a fine powder, dry to the naked eye but which is >95% water. Cohesion between the silica particles is strong enough to avoid coalescence of the water. It gets fancy names, as you would expect: liquid marbles, dry water etc. --Project Osprey (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is a

WP:POINTY. ~Kvng (talk

) 14:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support deletion, the article is little more than technobabble.--Project Osprey (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The creator posted the following at the talk page, but did not remove the PROD tag:

Let me address [ North8000's ] concerns. The name has been already used by other authors, apart from the first proponent, I have added references in the article.

About the recognized topic for the material in the article, it can be "Supramulecular Chemistry", or "Scence of Nanomaterials".

Moreover, about the article being "based on mirrors of a single source by Roberto Geremano et al. (2013)". The origin of the research on this new material can be dated at least back to the article by Pollak's group, published in 2006 on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", because the Exclusion Zone mentioned by Pollak is the same material (supramulecular structure) as the Xerosydryle mentioned by Germano. Even earlier research dates back to 1960, although less explicitly linked to the material.

Finally, the scientific papers referenced in the article are published not only on (bogus?) Water journal, but also on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", which has h-index 194 and is solidly in the first quartile for its field (https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=26533&tip=sid&clean=0), "Journal of Molecular Liquids", which has h-index 132 and is also in the first quartile, "Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry", h-index 101, second quartile, "Journal of Porous Media" (h-39, Q3).

So, I believe that it is really inappropriate to describe the content of the article as highly dubious, as said by @LaundryPizza03, the proponent of the deletion.
— User:Oakwood 19:07, 16 June 2022

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The research by Germano and colleagues is in continuity with the research by Pollak, which has been published on a Q1 journal. The statement that the material in the article (e.g. the Exclusion Zone reported by Pollak) is an hoax, is in disagreements with the reviewers and the editors of several prestigious journals. I have removed the PROD tag, based on the arguments written here and in the Talk page of the article, and on the extra references added. Oakwood (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I think that right here is the best place to pick a general direction on this. Flow wise, here are possibilities:

1. Send to AFD. Some of you experts would need to weigh in there.
2. Me mark it as reviewed.

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have nominated the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerosydryle. We should be able to get a definitive outcome from that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about the right place where to discuss the deletion: here? in the page 'talk' section? in the deletion talk page? could you please clarify? thanks! Oakwood (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:AFD. The correct place for further discussion is now at the link in his latest message above (also notified on your Talk Page). As part of any comment you add, it would be interesting to say how you know articles are in the review process, and should be published in the near future from your earlier comment. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is probably not so much a hoax in the sense of a deliberate fraud by the investigator, but anomalous science in which the investigator has deluded or deceived himself. This is claimed to be water behaving in a very non-standard way under ordinary conditions due to supposed unusual supramolecular structure, that is, hydrogen bonding behaving in an unknown fashion. This seems to be just a different form of polywater. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean pathological science? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03 - Yes. My error. This is pathological science rather than a hoax. Although the reported physical properties are different than those reported for polywater, it is still polywater. The differences in reported properties don't matter, because it isn't a real material and so doesn't have physical properties. It is polywater and so is pathological science, again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bisphenol A is currently being assessed for Good Article status. I'm aware that we don't usually go in for such baubles, but it seemed a fairly rare example of a non-drug small-molecule which is of public interest. I would welcome input at Talk:Bisphenol A/GA1. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well there's baubles, and there is service to society, and this article falls into the latter category. For baubles, you might consider shifting your editing toward Elvis or such. More seriously, BPA is highly topical for many reasons and I worry that some views on the topic are uninformed, so its important that the world see a balanced technical summary. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Ll0103 has made several edits over the recent past, always and only citing his primary journal articles. I tried to revert these things, but it would be helpful if some administrator would intercede. I am sure that this person is convinced of the brilliance and notability of their publications, but he's abusing our system. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ll0103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've been at it since 2014, and also using IPs such as User:129.105.149.245. DMacks (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Today's XKCD. DMacks (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely helps me improving the articles, makes editing so much nicer. I'd contest some carbons though. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I preferred yesterday's. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I keep thinking that its good that the Welsh didnt discover any elements, e.g., Llanfairpwllgwyngyllium.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed...Of course, if you want something a bit more intellectual, there's always this sonnet...

doi:10.1021/jo00800a036 --Project Osprey (talk

) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Would require three-letter symbol indeed. Still, Lll all. -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the much needed update. Why not take this opportunity give the long-neglected

element zero a place in the table. Its only stable isotope (nothing) is the most noble of all the noble gases. Well-known isotopes include the neutron. Heavier isotopes (such as neutron stars) have not yet been isolated in the lab and perhaps shouldn't be (safety first!). –MadeOfAtoms (talk

) 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

zero is such a ... bronze-age concept. Sure it build pyramids and cities and civilisations and clay-based spreadsheets, but what else?

No, I think the Periodic Table needs the Imaginary element. Atomic number i. Likely diatomic in appearance. Simplifies quantum theory, if not: explains it all. i there's no heaven. At last, even Scerry will admit it's not chemics, nor physics: elements are just math. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@

dineutron has been observed, but it's not a true bound state and tetraneutron might exist. DMacks (talk

) 23:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Where do we fit Ps positronium? It does have known chemistry: positronium hydride .... Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If dineutrons had a say

in the periodic table then I'm all for them. And positronium chemistry is a severely cool so it definitely needs its onium atomic number. That's where complex Z should come to the rescue, somehow. (The complex analysis folks must have known this when they called it z). Positronium can be seen as ⁰
₀n⁻¹⁰
₀n⁺¹, the disproportionation of neutral nothing (⁰
₀n) (or should it be dinothing?) into a bound state of the nothing anion (Welsh "yn syml electron chi hen ffwl gwirion") and the nothing cation. But I digress. The important thing is safety first: do not look directly at your positronium sample. –MadeOfAtoms (talk

) 09:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose Positronium could be an isotope of hydrogen with −1 neutrons, even if it's not MadeOfAtoms. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Support "dinothing". -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sand battery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Sand battery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

List of crystals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects to List of gemstones by species. I find this situation odd, since there are many crystals that are not gems and several gems that are not crystalline. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25#List of crystals

Deleted via G7 -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances § RfC about PFAS vs PFASs -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I went to this RfC and my impression is that the issue is not specific to PFAS or at the least it's not clear why it should be specific to PFAS and a uniform approach across WP could make sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

All comments, including meta-ones, better be over there. This one is not seen usually, and certainly should not be discussed here. -DePiep (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The comment was pointing out that the RfC goes beyond what's going on over there, which is relevant here, but, yes, this point being validly made here, the discussion should continue over there or be moved here, but it should occur at one place. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a possibly interesting RFC on the

) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed that some time ago names like 'Sulfuric(IV) acid' and 'Sulphuric(IV) acid' were added to this article [1]. Also in Sulfite there is "(or the sulfate(IV) ion, from its correct systematic name)" [2]. I would like to know what is the source of these names, and more importantly, which source stated that these names are systematic? AFAIK since 1940 IUPAC never published any publication with such names as systematic.

Why I'm interested: such names are very popular in Polish education system. The reason why such names are used there is not entirely clear, even despite the fact that these were never recommended systematic names (both by IUPAC and Polish Chemical Society) and nowadays it is very hard to fight this misinformation.

I would be very grateful for any authoritative source of such names in English. Wostr (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is sort-of Stock nomenclature that was first included in IUPAC inorganic nomenclature in 1940 and is still present in the latest version, IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. But sulfuric acid is a common name so this is mixing common and systematic naming systems. You see it a lot in UK pre-university chemistry courses, probably because they are trying to teach nomenclature but don't want students to have to memorise a huge set of non-systematic names like permanganate. --Ben (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is some variation of 'Stock nomenclature', but not 'systematic' in any way. E.g. in Red Book 1990 there were names for some oxoacids and derivatives like 'trioxochloric(V) acid' for HClO₃ and 'trioxochlorate(V)' for ClO−3, but never 'chloric(V) acid' and 'chlorate(V)'. I am perhaps very strict in this regard, but as I mentioned, it is a big problem in Polish right now (with large discrepancies between the recommended nomenclature and that used in schools), and I was very surprised to see the same in the articles in English and I was convinced that it was mainly a Polish 'invention'. I should then try to look at British textbooks, because in the pl.wiki we have a whole section in respective article about inorganic nomenclature that describes this quasi-systematic nomenclature and why it is not systematic in any way. Wostr (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

To give you a concrete example, I just checked the textbook they used in my school for

A-Level chemistry. On page 206, it outlines proper Stock nomenclature, for example copper(II) chloride. It then moves onto anions and that's where things diverge from the nomenclature a professional chemist would use. There's nitrate(V) for NO₃⁻, chlorate(I) for ClO⁻, chlorate(III) for ClO₂⁻, chlorate(V) for ClO₃⁻ and , chlorate(VII) for ClO₄⁻. Obviously outside of school everyone calls these species nitrate, hypochlorite, chlorite, chlorate and perchlorate. --Ben (talk

) 20:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, this would mean that the same type of names are used in education in both countries, but it seems that there is no single source for such names (as if they were created independently in both countries, possibly by shortening the names from Red Book 1990, because there is no authoritative source from which they could be taken). Wostr (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added a {{connected contributor}} tag for myself to a chemistry biography article that I wrote back when I was a less experienced editor; see Talk:David S. Breslow § Connection note. I would like to invite anyone here to review the article to check its neutrality. After you have done so, feel free to update the tag by adding |checked={{subst:today}} by {{u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} to it. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lithium battery#Requested move 23 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of changes in the formatting of chemical formulae in articles recently, for example this diff. The {{chem2}} template seems very good but I'm less convinced by the <chem> tag because it renders the formula as an image and makes it impossible to find with text search. Do we have a policy on this? Ben (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't know about policy, but the diff you gave is OK with me: a complicated standout formula (full reaction even; own line) may well use <chem>; and inline (in running text) {{Chem2}} is used and works nicely. One cannot even F5 search a simple formula like ¹⁴C in wikitext, so other routes ere needed. DePiep (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_46#Use_of_"chem"_in_chemical_equations_instead_of_classical_one. I think that use of <chem> and {{chem}} is deprecated, but this isn't really enforced. Personally I prefer the old fashioned way. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes <chem> should be avoided. {{chem2|}} has now been improved so that you can find the formula with a search, and also copy and paste it (unlike {{chem|}} which is more difficult to use anyway). But if you need long arrows with text and symbols above, then you may have to use <math> markup. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

G'day, I've got our lovely Gordon Aylward's 4th edition of SI Chemical Data on my hands. Since it's the 4th edition (which was published 1998), it obviously does not contain any of the new superheavy elements. Now, I just wanted to know, can the data for all the other elements still be considered to be accurate? Regards X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 04:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose you have to check out the references currently in use in articles and see if the references they are using more up-to-date or accurate measurements. But don't trust our articles to have latest info anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Graeme Bartlett, excellent point about the cross-referencing. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 00:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What data, rougly, is used from the SI Ch.D.? Can't find a link to Gordon Aylward in there. DePiep (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

... Could someone indicate, .. DePiep (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, DePiep. The book gives the atomic number, weight, density for the element at 25 °C (77 °F) (unless indicated otherwise), melting/decomposition/sublimation temperature, boiling temperature, specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity at room temperature, electrical conductivity at 25 °C (77 °F), structure of a solid (rhombohedral, diamond, layer, chain, tetragonal etc), metallic radius/atomic radius, covalent radius, and ionic radius. That's just for the elements. Next there are the inorganic compounds, which it gives formulas, hazards, structure, whether it is a trimer or dimer, molecular weight, colour, density, melting & boiling temps, solubility (grams, anhydrous substance, per 100g water at 25 °C (77 °F), standard enthalpy of formation and Gibbs energy for 1 mole of the substance, standard entropy and molar heat capacity, molar enthalpy of fusion, sublimation and vaporisation, electric dipole moment for molecules in gaseous state, and much much more. You get the gist. Stuff that'd belong in infoboxes. It covers inorganic compounds, organic functional groups, bond lengths, anything you can image. If you need something specific, don't hesitate to flick me a message. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 08:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sort of CRC then. But by "which data is used" I meant "... in this wiki", i.e., in which references? No WP:element links in [[3]] DePiep (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh right, I see. No, Graeme Bartlett was referring to other articles, like actual chemistry articles, not Gordon Aylward's specific article. Hope this clears it up. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 08:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at my copy of SI Chemical Data, which is from 1971 some references used by it are up to the same year. But some data is old, eg pH and conductivity of water at different temperatures is from 1926 and 1959. The references used are compilations and other tertiary literature, and not primary publications. But there are a couple of reviews. Checking out some values (density) there are better figures around than in this 2nd edition, but I don't know about your 4th ed. I reckon that data for superheavy elements is not available at all (apart from atomic number and symbol). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have ChemDraw, otherwise I'd tackle this myself. Commons contains several mechanisms for the

) 14:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

A recent review doi: 10.1039/d1nj03300j (which I have access to) has in its scheme 2 essentially the same mechanism as in our article at Dakin oxidation#Reaction mechanism. I could quibble that the diagram we use has more lone-pair electrons shown than most organic chemists would use but I don't see anything actually wrong. Clearly an .svg file would be preferred. I can easily re-do the diagrams for the article but before that perhaps we should continue this discussion on the Talk Page of the article so it will be more accessible to those interested in commenting and better when archived. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Stage 2 looks like an elimination to me, but maybe I'm just fussy. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I see it as a straightforward [1,2] aryl migration. The electrons in the phenyl-to-C bond migrate so that they become bonded to the oxygen that was the nucleophile centre when the peroxide anion attacked the carbonyl group. An elimination reaction would normally involve loss of a proton, which this does not: the proton originally on the carbonyl group ends up in the formyl ester. The product would be a carboxylic acid if elimination had occurred; the whole point of Dakin reactions is that it is not a simple oxidation of aldehyde to acid. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand what's happening, I just don't think it's depicted very well. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that while File:Dakin oxidation base-catalyzed mechanism.png looks correct chemically, it's visually confusing that the layout of the H and O around the benzylic carbon change in 2→3 (and then around that same C change again in 4→5). DMacks (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on your comments, I've created an .svg version of the file as File:Dakin oxidation base-catalyzed mechanism.svg. That's how I would draw the reaction but I'm open to suggestions for further improvements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful! DMacks (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That is an improvement. Many thanks --Project Osprey (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Project Osprey I've updated the article including the recent review ref. Do the other diagrams need redoing or can they be left based on the idea that the base-catalysed mechanism is the most important and the others are similar? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've posted this and then gone quiet, not very helpful of me... I think the rest is fine. Thanks again for your efforts. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hallo, if somebody finds time to save the article from delisting, please help! --Stone (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A link too FAR, been running since the start of Sept. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@OlliverWithDoubleL: I noticed this equation in ketonic decarboxylation:

${\displaystyle {\ce {R}}{\color {red}{\ce {-C(O)OH}}}+{\ce {R'}}{\color {red}{\ce {-C(O)OH}}}\longrightarrow {\ce {RR'}}{\color {red}{\ce {C=O}}}+{\ce {CO2 + H2O}}}$

Maybe we can discuss this equation because the editor OlliverWithDoubleL has been very active:

• Isn't there consensus that Chem2 is preferred over <math chem>?
• The color labeling is inconsistent.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

See also #Formatting of chemical formulae in article text above. Ben (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: @Ben:

Hey all,

With regards to this particular chemical equation, the coloring I added was meant only to highlight the interconversion between the carboxylic acid and ketone groups in the equation, as emphasis. The ketone should be a different color, you're right.

With regards to my preference of <chem> for equations that aren't inline, I should probably have discussed with you all first. I think the {{chem}} and {{chem2}} formatting looks great when it's inline with the text; there, the MOS is right that the font change with <chem> would be jarring. But when the reaction equation is in its own line, like the ketonic decarboxylation one above, I think it looks better when the font is different; just like with math formulae elsewhere on Wikipedia, the change in font makes the equation stand out from the rest of the text, and it also blends in nicely with articles that also contain math formulas of the same font. Also, the choice of font is nicer too; in the usual Wikipedia font, it's near impossible to tell a capital I from a lowercase L (I or l), but the <math> and <chem> fonts make it easy. This is important when considering, for instance, the oxidation state of a substance (e.g. I) versus its physical state (e.g. liquid, l). I know that some users have placed links within their formulas, which isn’t possible with <chem>; I’ve tried to move the names of the substances to the surrounding text, or instead named the substance using \overset. Is this acceptable?

Also, and this is just an issue that I have as a primarily mobile user, but I try to turn the formatting of equations like this: {{chem2}} + {{chem2}} -> {{chem2}} + {{chem2}} + …

Into this: {{chem2| … -> … }} or <chem> … -> … /chem>

Because, although the former may look nice on a desktop browsing window, it is often text-wrapped for mobile users, which creates a lot of confusion particularly when a series of equations is present or when the formulas are particularly long. In that case, a single {{chem2}} or <chem> formula is nice because it ensures the text isn’t wrapped, so I've been collecting both inline and indented formulas into one unbroken {{chem2}} or <chem> line. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@OlliverWithDoubleL: It looks like there are a range of views here on the <chem>. As there is no consensus to use it and there are some good reasons not to use it (such as not being searchable within the page, unlike {{chem2}}), I think it would be best if you stopped adding <chem> tags to articles for now and stuck to chem2. Ben (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. I suspect that the editing community here dislikes <chem>, and prefers the chem2 method or the old <sub> route. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For reference: current MOSCHEM guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Line equations. Ben (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be good to also have all historic benzene structures as they appeared in the original publication. If not in the article itself, then at least on Commons.
Currently, it seems that we only have two of them:

• 
  Armstrong
• 
  Kekulé
• 
  Claus (newly uploaded)
• 
  Ladenburg (newly uploaded)
• 
  Dewar benzene (newly uploaded)
• 
  Dewar correct (newly uploaded)
• 
  Dewar all (newly uploaded)
• 
  von Baeyer (newly uploaded)

The relevant original publications of the others need to be identified. Any help is much appreciated. --Leyo 13:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The references in the caption for the diagram at Benzene#Ring formula include good links to archival material including this Berichte reference from 1867. They would be out of copyright, of course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Before, I tried to find the structure proposed by Dewar as it appears in our article. However, it is not contained in reference cited there.

I extracted and uploaded the proposal by Claus. Moreover, I created c:Category:Historic benzene structures. --Leyo 22:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Dewar was hedging his bets. He drew (p. 85 of doi:10.1017/S0370164600045387) seven possible structures based on C₆H₆, some of which are fanciful indeed. However, he included (middle of top row) what we would now consider to be the "correct" structure and to the right on the second row what we now call Dewar benzene. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been looking for a more standard structural formula. :-)

By the way: In the article, it says that Dewar's publication is from 1867, but it seems that 1869 is correct. --Leyo 12:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected them in the two relevant articles. The confusion arose, I think, because the 1869 publication was describing Sessions run in 1866-67. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to note that the table in de.wikipedia (that corresponds to Benzene#Ring formula) now shows consistently the historic structural formulas. This might also be done here. --Leyo 21:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and be

WP:BOLD and make that change, which personally I would take to be an improvement. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Done. The following two sentences from previous image caption didn't fit anywhere:

Dewar benzene and prismane are distinct molecules that have Dewar's and Ladenburg's structures. Thiele and Kekulé's structures are used today.

--Leyo 21:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

de:wp is currently discussing the deletion of de:Hantz-Reaktionen, because the name is OR. Earlier a renaming was discussed with no result. Can anyone contribute to this topic? Gimli21 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Would I be correct in thinking that Category:Flavanones and Category:Flavones (and their associated wikimedia pages) should just be merged? Project Osprey (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. The parent flavone has an unsaturated oxygen ring (see Chemspider entry), whereas flavanone is partially saturated in that ring, as for its record. Of course, I haven't checked that the categorisations on all our articles are correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that. Cheers --Project Osprey (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that their contributions are usually poor and their supervisors do not supervise. https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch/status/1592321603689484288/photo/1 --Smokefoot (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Worth reading. DePiep (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've passed the link onto The Signpost (hope you don't mind). Anecdotally we know it to be true, but it's interesting to see how big the effect is. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this was already covered in Signpost a few months ago. It proved some authors are copying Wikipedia without credit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Bits of it did seems familiar... mayhaps they borrowed content from a Signpost article to write their blog post, and I've now sent that blog back to Signpost? Great example of circular referencing, if thats the case. That is something which does concern me. Remember that book on inorganic compounds that someone (Smokefoot?) found, which lifted whole sections from Wikipedia without credit. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

School projects

And if you do want to get stuck into some student work, there is a bunch of maingroup chemistry pages arriving in the last week:

1-phosphaallenes, N-Heterocyclic carbene boryl anion , ?m-Terphenyl. We appear to get a batch once a year. Graeme Bartlett (talk

) 11:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The main group stuff is probably the work of MIT students. They steadfastly ignore guidelines, producing very specialized but usually technically correct articles, sometimes sprinkled with their own (DFT calculations.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Umiversity of Alabama at Birmingham/Honors Organic Chemistry I (Fall 2022) is landing a lot of their work in mainspace this week. Spot-checking, it often needs better integration/reduced redundancy/tightening to the article's specific topic (as usual, adding a content block to an existing encyclopedia article rather than writing a self-contained school essay from scratch). But content-wise seems generally sensible. And they're often working on a reasonable academic level of the content. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Could a (general) structural formula be added? And what about adding the chembox? Leyo 08:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added a chembox. There seems to be different substance ids depending how this is terminated. For polymers most representations are a failure, and databases do not record then correctly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going by the name I'm unsure how it's different from

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber... The article said that it includes acrylic acid (but it's not in the name, so, low levels?) but that is also a type of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (XNBR). --Project Osprey (talk

) 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they look to be the same as the ids look the same as for Nitrile rubber. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing there must be a difference in the structure. The stated uses of the 2 materials are very different. IDs aren't always useful that useful for polymers, lots of things get lumped together. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

as i've figured out through some NASA paper, PBAN and HTPB are the liquid prepolymers, the "finished" product is a rubbery substance (like NBR or XNBR).

https://www.ibb.ch/publication/NASA-SP/sp8075.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19660025411 this is especially true in publications from around 1955 to 1965 +/- when PBAA, PBAN, CTPB and HTBP were invented and basically always refered as the prepolymer used in mixing solid rocket fuel, if you take later publications, you'll get a more mixed/synonymous use with the cured Butadiene Rubber Type polymers --Suit (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the structural formula in this article have terminal hydroxyl groups? The first sentence reads as follows:

Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) is an oligomer of butadiene terminated at each end with a hydroxyl functional group.

If yes, is anyone able to amend that structural formula? Leyo 22:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. It does seem that OH groups should be shown, sorta the defining feature. If I get time after some vacation travel, I will redraw if no one else does.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The article needs a bit of work. The main reference to a crayvalley .pdf is no longer working and needs to be found at the Wayback machine. The external link for US5159123 goes to that archive rather than a live Google Patents link such as this one. Having read the patent, I'm not really any wiser as to the exact structure! The wiggly lines in the current diagram in the article just refer to an unspecified total number of repeat units, without, as Leyo notes, actually showing where the OH groups would sit. From the patent's description of the synthesis, I think they will be somewhat at random throughout the structure, many more than two per polymer molecule. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it.

On https://www.crayvalley.com/products/liquid-polybutadienes/poly-bd-hydroxyl-terminated/, the link to the TDS does not work. --Leyo 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On that page, the Tech Update" link gets to a PDF that has the structure of Poly bd R45HTLO. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks I tried that link yesterday, like Leyo, and it did nothing (i.e. it just refreshed the page I was on). It's doing the same today, perhaps because my IP address is in the UK. Can you put the new link into the Wayback machine and get it copied there? For me, copying the link gives https://www.crayvalley.com/products/liquid-polybutadienes/poly-bd-hydroxyl-terminated/# (note the hash symbol), not a .pdf. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

need to mention Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Polybutadiene_acrylonitrile here, HTPB (and PBAN) used in solid rocket fuel referred to the liquid prepolymer in the past, the cured polymer would bei an rubber like XNBR - this needs to be crosschecked with some expert on the topic --Suit (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Dorothy Hodgkin#Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)