Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
| Article alerts |
|---|
|
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Requested moves
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
List of fragrance compounds
[edit]There is a new page List of fragrance compounds created by DanyMations who rejected a prior draftification by Significa liberdade. Almost every entry is a redlink, of the three sources one is a paper on work-related asthma while other two are wikilinks to International Flavors & Fragrances#List of fragrance ingredients and Fragrance compound. This looks to me like a fairly obvious AfD for multiple reasons, but I thought I would ask here for comments first, particularly to explore if a more experienced editor feels the list merits repair and is willing to work on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is it not allowed to use Wikipedia links as citations? They are tertiary sources, so what's the issue? And if there is an issue, is it best to reference each category link, such as https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=amber (for amber scents), https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=citrus (for citrus scents), and so on?
- Thanks! DanyMations (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page, as this is a technical editing question as against the question of whether the current list passes any of WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia articles are user generated content and are consequently not reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- The value I would see in this page is as a place to put the existing list from the main fragrance compound page, which currently {{main}}links this page despite it having less information and no organisation. What information exists in the table should be draftified and integrated into that scheme.
- Further, the large number of redlinked trade names raises my WP:PROMOTION hackles; I don't know what "Floral Super" is, but I doubt that's what its PubChem page is called. All of the page's sources are the catalogues of R&D firms in the fragrance industry, which doesn't even pass my low bar for WP:PRIMARY reporting on compounds. Fishsicles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response,
- Is it best to use PubChem names as the title of such article? I can change the name of Floral Super to 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal per PubChem,[1] as well as any other chemical.
- Also, per WP:PRIMARY policy 3, it states that straightforward facts, such as the existence of a compound and its characteristics, can be from primary sources. DanyMations (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned with existence being established by primary sources, I'm concerned with establishing notability. It is a vested interest of these companies to showcase as many compounds as possible, because that makes them appear more productive to investors. "We made a new compound" is chemically very simple, and the standards of "new" are often "we stuck a superfluous methyl on it"; more significant in determining coverage is if there's analysis of the usage of a compound.
- I only really know fragrances insomuch as students spray them in poorly ventilated classrooms and asphyxiate me; how documented are their compositions? Is there a regulatory list akin to E numbers that could be a source for a listing? That would at least suggest some level of review outside the manufacturer's marketing team. I'd even be willing to consider some kind of industry awards, if they documented why a specific compound was worth highlighting. Fishsicles (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply.
- So, for Floral super, would this study regarding its toxicity make the compound notable?
- https://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/71077-31-1.pdf
- If so, can any scientific study regarding a fragrance compound make such a compound notable? DanyMations (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- One study is not evidence of notability. Any known compound has a study that shows it exists by definition, and anything in consumer goods ought to have a few more that suggest they're safe for human use. Of more interest would be a literature review that establishes a wider field of substantial research into a compound.
- For consumer goods like fragrances, I think they key question is of production volume. If they're only making a couple tonnes a year, it probably doesn't merit an article unless it's been in the headlines. Fishsicles (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could three studies be evidence of notability, per usual GNG requirements? SVG-image-maker (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
References
- It is best not to use brand names, unless that is by far the most used name, including in scientific literature. So better to use a systematic name if there is no common name. On whether the list exists, see if you can find books or papers that have such lists of fragrance compounds. Databases devoted to the topic may show notability, but if the company is trying to sell the product, then it is not independent. For content of an article on a fragrance, if all you can say it is a fragrance, it does not justify an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- My main thought with the use of brand names is balancing two issues:
- Pages on compounds should be about the compound, not specific formulations from specific manufacturers: the main page is methylphenidate, not Ritalin or Concerta
- Pages should have names that reasonably fit on someone's screen: Allura Red AC, not "disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfonatophenyl)diazenyl]naphthalene-2-sulfonate".
- My thought is to use brand-agnostic common names as are common in pharmaceuticals (often derived from systematic names, not always IUPAC; e.g. para-acetamidophenol -> paracetamol), followed by systematic names of reasonable length. In the absence of either, use a brand name if you can establish notable usage of the name in secondary literature. My absolute lowest bar is brand names as used in regulatory documents, which is why I'll settle for furrowing my brow and grumbling at Allura Red AC; is it better known as Red 40 or E129? Probably, but those are defined as synonyms for that specific brand name, and I'd prefer using a brand name than elevating USA or EU regulators over each other. That said, if your most notable source for using a name is the regulatory document, there should be significant secondary coverage to establish notability of the compound, as if the most notable independent references you can find are regulatory paperwork, I'd raise serious WP:GNG questions. Fishsicles (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can see that this is well intentioned, but the IFRA list is over 3600 entries long. That is too long to be of practical use. Cross-referencing against the ECHA registry cuts this down to ~1200 chemicals (removing various extracts, tinctures and other complex natural mixtures). Limiting these further to those used in quantities greater than 100 tons per year in the EU gives a list of 413 entries. It can be found Here. There are many red listed articles, some aren't suitable for wikipedia but other are. They would be a fine place to start if you wanted into increase our content on the topic.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for assembling this list. I have cleaned up some of the links and sorted out a few more mixtures from compounds, though I'm sure there's some more alternate names etc to be found by a finer comb. Fishsicles (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Articles in need of attention
[edit]These articles have verification and factuality issues and will be nominated for deletion if they don't get picked up. If anyone wants to save them, go ahead NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- These articles were deleted. --Leyo 11:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it's been a while and they haven't been picked up by anyone NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Lithium-ion battery cleanup
[edit]I am planning to try and clean up the Lithium-ion battery article (currently around 10k words). Please feel to provide feedback here. Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects. —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Why is this discussion being held by editors with no track record in chem/biochemistry area? If one does not edit in some sort of molecular or chemical theme, leading such a discussion seems inappropriate. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Many new stub pages on "investigational drugs"
[edit]I noticed that many new stub chemistry pages have been created by Boghog; from the log I see 16 today and 50 (yes 50) in the last week. Is it really good to have so many stubs created that someone else has to improve (e.g. repair) and/or review? I am not going to review these, it is out of my competence, but I have to question this. N.B., some are classified under the Chemicals project. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see any immediately obvious problem with it. I prefer a little more content when it comes to chemical stubs but there's nothing objectionable in these stubs from the few I've seen. Connecting them to Wikidata would be nice. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- As a test, d:Q140473169 is now populated using {{infobox drug}} data from alnodesertib. Unfortunately there is limited use for this since only "P628 E number", "P2566 ECHA Substance Infocard ID", and "P3117 DSSTox substance ID / CompTox DTXSID" records from Wikidata can be imported back into the infobox. Other infoboxes like {{infobox gene}} can get all the data from wikidata. But this is currently not possible with the chembox and drugbox. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible for the infobox identifiers to be autofilled from Wikidata—many other language Wikipedias do this—it's just not enabled here for most items. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am someone who adds values to the infoboxes and add chemical categories, and sometimes do the NPP. I don't consider it a burden, but if there is a lot in one day, they can be edited later on. I think it is more important to have coverage of chemicals and drugs than second tier soccer players for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Done - Wikidata pages for all 50 new drug stubs have now been added. Boghog (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am someone who adds values to the infoboxes and add chemical categories, and sometimes do the NPP. I don't consider it a burden, but if there is a lot in one day, they can be edited later on. I think it is more important to have coverage of chemicals and drugs than second tier soccer players for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible for the infobox identifiers to be autofilled from Wikidata—many other language Wikipedias do this—it's just not enabled here for most items. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- As a test, d:Q140473169 is now populated using {{infobox drug}} data from alnodesertib. Unfortunately there is limited use for this since only "P628 E number", "P2566 ECHA Substance Infocard ID", and "P3117 DSSTox substance ID / CompTox DTXSID" records from Wikidata can be imported back into the infobox. Other infoboxes like {{infobox gene}} can get all the data from wikidata. But this is currently not possible with the chembox and drugbox. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- These {{pharma-stub}} primarily come under the umbrella of WP:PHARMA, but of course, as drugs are chemicals they also come under the scope of WP:CHEM. They all could be expanded, but what exactly needs repair? The main issues are likely the selection of the chemical categories which are tricky to assign and adding a few missing identifiers to the {{infobox drug}}, but these are errors of omission and don't require urgent fixes. Concerning expansion, please keep in mind that WP:THEREISNORUSH. I would also like to emphasize that I don't intend to produce any more drug stubs for the immediate future. Instead, I am now concentrating on improving these myself starting with deorphanization. I very much welcome, but don't expect others to improve these stubs, and I am actively trying to do this myself. Boghog (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Boghog, one of the problems is that all new pages need to be reviewed as part of WP:NPP. I see that a couple of them have already been reviewed by Mariamnei, who has asked you to expand them. While I have seen many new pages which are in far worse shape, it takes time for NPP reviewers to evaluate them and decide whether to draftify them for improvement, leave them, mark as reviewed or other. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am not a fan of very short articles on totally useless or ultra-esoteric compounds. They just add to the "curation burden", i.e. that many more articles that can go wrong somehow and required minding. Also, the additions encourage others to just add
shitstuff - hey, why not 1-bromo-2-fluoro-3-nitroanthracene? What gives me pause is that Boghog is a valued member of our editing crew.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am not a fan of very short articles on totally useless or ultra-esoteric compounds. They just add to the "curation burden", i.e. that many more articles that can go wrong somehow and required minding. Also, the additions encourage others to just add
- @Boghog, one of the problems is that all new pages need to be reviewed as part of WP:NPP. I see that a couple of them have already been reviewed by Mariamnei, who has asked you to expand them. While I have seen many new pages which are in far worse shape, it takes time for NPP reviewers to evaluate them and decide whether to draftify them for improvement, leave them, mark as reviewed or other. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is nothing new. We have many articles (literally thousands) on early-stage drug candidates such as this set of new ones. Considering that ~90% of drugs that enter clinical trials are not successful, chances are that 90% of these types of articles will never have any meaningful content beyond "this drug is/was studied to treat X". I think most of them would not pass WP:GNG if considered objectively against the policy's wording, but precedence and inertia tend to override that. Marbletan (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Probably the most important issue is notability. All of these drug candidates have been assigned an INN and have entered at least phase 2 clinical trials which confers a certain amount of notability. Many but not all have been covered in secondary, published reviews. In retrospect, I should have selected only drug candidates that have entered phase 3 trials at which time coverage in review articles becomes almost certain. One thing I want to make absolutely clear: I will not expand articles beyond what reliable sources support. With respect to expansion, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it is absolutely true that 90% of these drug candidates will never be approved for general use. Nevertheless, the data that these trials generate is still valuable as it tells you what doesn't work. It also changes scientific understanding, influences future drug development, and provides historical context. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Acetate vs acetic acid, propionate vs propionic, etc...
[edit]We or someone down the road will need to consider splitting some simple carboxylic acid articles. So, there is acetic acid, a big deal. And separately acetate, also a big deal, especially in biochemistry. This dichotomy does not exist for propionate, butyrate, and benzoate, which redirect to respectively to propionic acid, butyric acid, benzoic acid. These carboxylic acids are fully ionized anywhere close to pH 7, so the anions are expecially important. We also have sodium propionate, sodium butyrate, and sodium benzoate. No crisis but slightly messy.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Smokefoot We had this discussion in 2020: see WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#h-Carboxylic acids vs carboxylate anion/esters-2020-08-30T14:35:00.000Z. We concluded then that only acetate and formate should have their own separate articles, and we implemented a merger of the rest. Specific salts are OK if they meet GNG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Oxygen generating biomaterial, SYNTH?
[edit]Maybe I am too old critical, but to me Oxygen generating biomaterial looks like some major WP:SYNTH.
- Is it realistic to consider CaO2 or perfluorocarbons in the context of a biomaterial?
- The platforms section looks like a completely different page.
Ldm1954 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overall the topic seems to be notable, eg Google scholar lists numerous sources Some of these do discuss percarbonate. I gather that the basic research challenge is to incorporate these compounds, which one would not normally associate with biology, into artificial structures, which where the "platforms" bit comes in. Since the artificial structures are not initially integrated with circulating oxygen, adjacent cells can die. Controlled release of artificial oxygen is the engineering solution. Maybe the article is a bit opaque on the basic points.
- I agree that at least one of the sources is out of place:
- Waite, Andrew James; Bonner, James S.; Autenrieth, Robin (May 1999). "Kinetics and Stoichiometry of Oxygen Release from Solid Peroxides". Environmental Engineering Science. 16 (3): 187–199. Bibcode:1999EEngS..16..187W. doi:10.1089/ees.1999.16.187.
- This paper is about bioremediation and does not belong in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, there are a couple of other cases where the sources in my reading do not verify the content. In addition in the platforms section some of the descriptions look too much like OR to me. I think it is not ready for a WP:DYK nomination (there is one). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article was created recently by User:Tityre1 as part of WP:GLAM/PoliMi/2026. I agree the topic is notable but like all articles, the present version could be improved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- That classes pages are better than many, and the prof appears to know his Wikipedia. However, they all need checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Its garbage and synthesis (creation of a topic). Look at the first two refs, one is Frontiers... and the other is junky Cell Press with nobody-editors. That having been said, the article will never be wiped out. Life goes on.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I do not see that there enough structural issues for draftification? I posted here to get other opinions, and the comments are not strong enough to persuade me, or to justify my sending it to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Its garbage and synthesis (creation of a topic). Look at the first two refs, one is Frontiers... and the other is junky Cell Press with nobody-editors. That having been said, the article will never be wiped out. Life goes on.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- That classes pages are better than many, and the prof appears to know his Wikipedia. However, they all need checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton, Mike Turnbull, and Smokefoot:, one of the students in the class, Tityre1 is doing many edits to improve the article. If you have any suggestions please add them at Talk:Oxygen_generating_biomaterial. My opinion of this class is that the students are producing much higher quality work than many WikiEd programs, albeit not perfect (but who is?). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Good luck. Interacting with student projects has been frustrating for some of us. Instructors uninvolved, poor sources, lack of context = some of the issues. Maybe you are the homework whisperer. The main issue is that even PhD students operate at a level well below the usual team here. They think that they are elite, and maybe they are in some ways, but they arent. One irony is that WikiEd is under the impression that the homework projects are a tool for recruiting editors, but the sticking coefficient is low. Maybe I am too sour.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 17#Infoboxes for individual elements
[edit]You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 17#Infoboxes for individual elements, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is a proposal to subst: (and then delete) all the infoboxes for atomic elements into the individual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- At the TfD, I asked for a demo of how Hydrogen would appear after substituting {{Infobox hydrogen}}. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- That has been done. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Environmental and safety aspects of acidic compounds
[edit]Hopefully this issue has not been raised previously: several compounds of environmental interest are acidic. In the environment (which we assume is aqueous), such compounds do not exist per se. The list includes trifluoroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, maybe pentachlorophenol, and probably many others. I can imagine that for elaborate organic compounds, e.g., pentachlorophenolate, the anion is no friendlier than the parent acid itself, but I wonder about trifluoroacetate and trichloroacetate. Regardless, the wording of such environmental/safety sections sometimes needs to acknowledge this complication. On the other hand, dwelling on the acid vs. conjugate base distinction could wreck readability, since it is such a picky point.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- Well, we generally have the articles for the neutral compounds, also this might not be the environmentally relevant form. It does simply not make sense to additionally have articles for anions of such acidic compounds. Trichloroacetate is a redirect, while Trifluoroacetate used to be one until October 2025. In cases, where the cation does not really matter (e.g. salts of PFAAs), it would not make sense to have own articles for e.g. Na, K or ammonium salts. Therefore, the information on the anions are best suited to be in the corresponding acid's article. --Leyo 22:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Inconsistent award
[edit]Does anyone know about the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering Fellows program? I was just reviewing the new page Yevgeny Brudno. With an h-factor of 21 and many cites where he is "one-of-many" in team papers he would normally not pass WP:NPROF; the h-factor looks real as Scopus has 19. However, he was just elected as a fellow. This is inconsistent, unless the fellow elections have just become less restricted. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Awkward situation: this person seems to be claiming stature he has not achieved. It is also worth inspecting this person's contributions.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Investigate what? He has two well cited team papers where he is one of many, then the third has 256 cites. Without the Fellow election he fails NPROF IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- That editor's contributions to Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I checked the contributions of Happy Panda 25, and did not see anything beyond a couple of pages where IMHO there was insufficient proof for NPROF (which I draftified for improvement). I think this is a "genuine" odd case. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- N..B, I will cross post to WT:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I checked the contributions of Happy Panda 25, and did not see anything beyond a couple of pages where IMHO there was insufficient proof for NPROF (which I draftified for improvement). I think this is a "genuine" odd case. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § MOS still encourages chemistry articles to indent with colons
[edit] You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § MOS still encourages chemistry articles to indent with colons, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.
The guidelines at MOS:CHEMINDENT are presently inconsistent with the rest of WP:MOS. The discussion concerns changes (most likely to {{chem}}/{{chem2}} and {{pad}}) to provide alternatives which would allow the guidelines to be made consistent. Nothing has been decided yet and the input of experienced editors would be welcome. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Proposal to deprecate four parameters in {{Infobox element}}, and other proposed overhauls.
[edit]1: The following four parameters, all related to abundance, are unused: abundance, abundance in earth's crust, abundance in oceans, and abundance in solar system. IMO, these "abundance" parameters are not necessarily infobox-worthy, because these are rarely if ever defining characteristics of an element, and particularly because estimates vary greatly depending on which reference book is consulted. For these reasons, the four parameters mentioned previously should be deprecated.
2: The parameters melting point K, melting point C, and melting point F should be merged into a single parameter with three separated values. For instance, a possible new syntax in the case of Cobalt could be |melting point = K1768;C1495;F2723
3: The same type of merge should happen with boiling point K, boiling point C, and boiling point F. SVG-image-maker (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Given mp in three different scales are not three independent values but instead any can be converted to or from any other, there should only be one value passed. The infobox can then give all three using {{cvt}} to get the standard WP formatting for the temperature in all three scales instead of WP editors doing the calculation and passing all three manually. For example, it could be consistent with {{Chembox}} (specifically
{{Chembox Properties|MeltingPtC=...}}). Same for bp. DMacks (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)- I agree with your approach for melting and boiling point. SVG-image-maker (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I might be repeating what DMacks said, but as I recall, the point of the different melting point versions was that an editor would use the one which matched the source they had. Then that value would be converted to what the infobox deems should be displayed. The problem with removing the K/C/F varieties is that people would write "123" as the value because that's what their source said, but they often don't think much about the unit. The version with no K/C/F is for cases where some non-uniform text is required because there is no known straightforward value. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- You actually raise a point beyond what I had: passing the parameter in units the source uses. That's different than chembox, where we always pass by C (chemicals are usually reported that way in the lit, rather than K). My comment here would entail manually converting from lit units to C. Given that's a mechanical process, we could even pass it using a {{cvt}} wrapper so "the lit value as reported" is still what is visible in the source. But I do see the value (ha!) in retaining the original lit value for literal display, as it would prevent rounding error in the round-trip K→C→K. Do you have a sense how many special-cases there are, where we need something other than a single straightforward value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell most of the special cases are past Fermium where there's appended text stating extrapolated or estimated. A good number of period 7 elements lack m.p or b.p completely. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 13:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC))
- There is a also a free-form
{{Chembox Properties|MeltingPt_notes=...}}field (and likewise bp). Separating the value itself from any annotations of it makes it easier for templates to do formatting magic (and for machine parsing in general). DMacks (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- There is a also a free-form
- As far as I can tell most of the special cases are past Fermium where there's appended text stating extrapolated or estimated. A good number of period 7 elements lack m.p or b.p completely. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 13:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC))
- You actually raise a point beyond what I had: passing the parameter in units the source uses. That's different than chembox, where we always pass by C (chemicals are usually reported that way in the lit, rather than K). My comment here would entail manually converting from lit units to C. Given that's a mechanical process, we could even pass it using a {{cvt}} wrapper so "the lit value as reported" is still what is visible in the source. But I do see the value (ha!) in retaining the original lit value for literal display, as it would prevent rounding error in the round-trip K→C→K. Do you have a sense how many special-cases there are, where we need something other than a single straightforward value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Revised proposals for overhauling {{Infobox element}}
[edit]In my opinion, a lot of the existing parameters could very well be merged, so fewer rows are necessary. After receiving some feedback above, I will make a few revisions to my initial proposals.
1: The four "abundance" parameters should be deprecated
[edit]The following four parameters, all related to abundance, are unused: abundance, abundance in earth's crust, abundance in oceans, and abundance in solar system. In my opinion, these "abundance" parameters are not necessarily infobox-worthy, because these are rarely if ever defining characteristics of an element, and particularly because estimates vary greatly depending on which reference book is consulted. For these reasons, the four parameters mentioned previously should be deprecated.
2: Merge the existing three melting point parameters into a single parameter
[edit]From the commentary above, the single parameter should be named melting point K (K being Kelvin) and it should have an autoconvert to Celsius and Fahrenheit.
3: Merge the existing three boiling point parameters into a single parameter
[edit]Largely similar to the previous section (with autoconvert and all), but with the new single parameter being boiling point K.
4: Reforms to the vapor pressure parameters
[edit]I propose a new syntax like this, with Cobalt as an example. |vapor pressures = 1790;1960;2165;2423;2755;3198 The documentation will need to be updated accordingly.
5: Deprecate and replace [X property] at [temperature Y] parameters
[edit]The approach of "X property at temperature Y" parameters currently used for some properties, is inconsistent with treatment of other properties such as lattice constants, where we instead list the conditions (e.g. "at 20 °C") after the =. The proposed reform will be more versatile. The parameter |thermal expansion at 25 is redundant with |thermal expansion. The parameters |electrical resistivity at 20 and |electrical resistivity at 0 can be merged into a new parameter called |electrical resistivity. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Why all the fuss about overhauling an infobox that no one else finds to be problematic? Have you edited some chemistry articles and found a problem? What problem? Have you edited any chemistry articles? Specific issues regarding merging melting point parameters were mentioned above and I do not see any engagement with those issues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Urtica ferox chemistry structure request
[edit]Hi. I was wondering if it's possible to create a diagram structure of the chemical compound Δ-Uf1a. If achieved, I'd imagine it would look similar to this example, but instead here. Is this possible to create? Thanks. Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hi User:Alexeyevitch. This substance is a peptide chain that is 42 amino acids long and has three bridges among different parts of the chain. I'm not the simplified skeletal diagram would be intelligible, even though it wouldn't be hard to draw. Figure 3B from that ref is the more conventional way of representing these sorts of chemicals. The 3D structure data are available from PDB: 7S7P. DMacks (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- DMacks Is the model itself under a free license or would it have to be drawn in Microsoft Paint or something similar? I'm unfamiliar with the website, and would appreciate your advice on who to incorporate the data into the Urtica ferox article. Cheers, Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- The datasets are free, and there is software available to generate those ribbon structures or other styles. I've heard conflicting info about whether those images are intrinsically free, meaning you can just grab it and upload it from whereever you find it (you can't copyright ideas, data, or facts of nature--isn't this just a plot of data of facts of nature?), or else if whoever generates it holds license control (there are substantive artistic choices about how it's presented, unlike a simple skeletal diagram). The cited article has a license that is not free enough for wikipedia purposes, so I tend to play it save and err towards the "we should recreate it ourselves" side of things. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- DMacks Is the model itself under a free license or would it have to be drawn in Microsoft Paint or something similar? I'm unfamiliar with the website, and would appreciate your advice on who to incorporate the data into the Urtica ferox article. Cheers, Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Articles on isotopologues
[edit]We may have discussed this issue previously, but I could not find it. We may need some policy.
I am skeptical that separate articles on many isotopologues are warranted. Yes, some are important (D2 vs H2, D2O vs H2O, CDCl3 vs CHCl3), but otherwise, so what? Maybe my judgement is off-base. After DX (X = F, Cl, Br, I), how far do we go?
I just moved deuterium fluoride to redirect to hydrogen fluoride. I sense that the same editor has several related articles on isotopologues in mind.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- "Notability" is the underlying quality we need to find to have an article, per WP:GNG. Even as lax as we are in the chemistry (and bio- and med- variants) about what that threshold is, there's gotta be more than just mechanical reporting of database structural facts. Heavy water and CDCl3 are each good examples where there are lots of things to say specific to the deuterated compound's physics, applications to science/engineering, etc, with lots of refs available. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think that even having a redirect at DF is overkill from what the article currently has to say about it; even after the edit, we note that "High purity deuterium fluoride results from the reduction of AgF2 in a D2 atmosphere"- but so what? Why is high-purity DF important? The cited paper is basic research, which is important for academia but not an encyclopaedia. If there isn't at least a subsection's worth of information on what makes an isotopologue significant, I'd rather a redlink than a redirect.
- For HF and DF specifically, a it looks like HF and DF have meaningful differences in lasers (WP briefly discusses it at hydrogen fluoride laser), but I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on that side of things to expand it into a worthwhile section myself. Fishsicles (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the default for articles without significant secondary sources on topics which might be notable, which are not synonyms, and which are not mentioned in related articles should be delete. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think every redirect should land on an article that says something about that topic. I added some content to Hydrogen fluoride. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's a pretty standard WP thought. Otherwise "I clicked this link, why the hell am I at an article that doesn't mention what the link was?". DMacks (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I was hoping to get the time to give some reason for the redirect, i.e., my suspicion that some colligative and spectroscopic properties of HF are peculiar because of the strength of the hydrogen bonding. This peculiarity would be manifested in the isotope effect on boiling point, maybe in the 19F NMR shift, etc. So, that section on H-bonding could be the target for the redirect. I just need to get around to this assignment, but my moment of inertia is rather high at present..--Smokefoot (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- While looking for H-bonding information, I came across doi:10.1039/c8cp06949b, which indicates that DF vs HF have actually different bonding modes. I also found doi:10.1063/1.464860, whose full-text I cannot access, but that might have additional notable differences between them. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Afd Synthetic colorant
[edit]Chemists might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic colorant. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
"Discovered by <instrument>", or "discovered by <person(s)> using <instrument>"?
[edit]Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Artificial life#Requested move 22 August 2026
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial life#Requested move 22 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
NPROF assessment requested for Draft:Matthew John Allen (chemist)
[edit]Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I am Matthew J. Allen, the subject of Draft:Matthew John Allen (chemist). I did not create the original submission and am requesting independent review rather than acceptance.
The draft was declined in April 2026 under WP:NPROF. A substantially shortened, independently sourced replacement has been proposed on the draft talk page. It focuses on scholarly discussions of aqueous Eu(II) stabilization, in vivo MRI contrast, molecular luminescence, and divalent-lanthanide photoredox catalysis.
The proposed text and source explanation are at Draft talk:Matthew John Allen (chemist)#Request for WP:NPROF review and independently sourced rewrite. Would an uninvolved chemistry editor assess whether the sourcing supports NPROF criterion 1 and identify any remaining technical, attribution, neutrality, or sourcing problems? I welcome direct editing by uninvolved editors. MJAChemistry (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- This is not the right place to ask such questions. I have responded on your talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Request for draft review: Denis Sabirov (theoretical chemist)
[edit]Hi everyone! I have recently created a draft for a prominent theoretical chemist and director of the Institute of Petrochemistry and Catalysis, Denis Sabirov. The draft is currently in the AfC queue: Draft:Sabirov, Denis. If any member of WikiProject Chemistry has some time to look over it and review it, I would highly appreciate your feedback and help. Thank you! Sis1975 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Grindstaff pyrazine
[edit]Does anyone here know anything about a Quirinius G. Grindstaff, whose name apparently was given to 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine? Please contribute on the talk page of that article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]Hi, I'm new. I am trying to learn about Chemistry. I have a Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Biochemistry textbook. I will copyedit articles that need copyediting. Thank you. Nepaxt (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry is a big list of "things you can do". Many of them only require a good textbook.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Placement of display math and chem formula
[edit]We will soon see the rollout of T271001 that changes the default rendering method for <math>...</math> and <chem>...</chem> formula from serverside SVG to client side SVG. This will have many changes to the look of formula that are best discussed upstream.
Once change we can potentially do here is the change the local CSS ensuring display equations get the same alignment as before. The do nothing option will see the placement of display <math>...</math> and <chem>...</chem> change from left-aligned and indented to center aligned. To reasses the consensus I've opened a discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Placement of display math and chem formula to reassess consensus.
Your input there is welcome. Salix alba (talk): 22:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- As part of the process, I've assembled a complete corpus of all
<chem>...</chem>and<math chem>...</math chem>formula in en.wikipedia to spot any glaringly obvious problems. You can find these at User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 1, User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 2, User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 3, User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 4, User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 5, User:Texvc2LaTeXBot/Corpus chem 6, with about 2000 formula per page. Some bugs there have been reported T437146, T437162, T437163, T437146, but there may be others. - You can help minimise any problems when the rollout happens by switching to Client-side render via your preferences, and reporting any bugs either of Phabricator or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/MathFormattingBugs. --Salix alba (talk): 23:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Category:Alpha-Amino acids has been nominated for discussion
[edit]
Category:Alpha-Amino acids has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)