Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Yet more incoming: Different idea
→‎Ball-and-stick model: your remark is odd
Line 401: Line 401:
::: Exactly! the tag prohibits me from adding any reference it all! We want to strongly discourage people just adding tags and complain instead of adding actual references. We want to strongly encourage people to pro actively add references. And it works! Someone complained in 2010 but did nothing constructive and got no results. Someone else asks a question in 2017 (and within days) with immediate results! [[User:V8rik|V8rik]] ([[User talk:V8rik|talk]]) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
::: Exactly! the tag prohibits me from adding any reference it all! We want to strongly discourage people just adding tags and complain instead of adding actual references. We want to strongly encourage people to pro actively add references. And it works! Someone complained in 2010 but did nothing constructive and got no results. Someone else asks a question in 2017 (and within days) with immediate results! [[User:V8rik|V8rik]] ([[User talk:V8rik|talk]]) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Your behavior seems completely irrational to me. It is much more likely to produce the opposite result than what you purport to want. The article remained unreferenced for seven years after being tagged because of editors such as ''you''. [[User:ChemNerd|ChemNerd]] ([[User talk:ChemNerd|talk]]) 13:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Your behavior seems completely irrational to me. It is much more likely to produce the opposite result than what you purport to want. The article remained unreferenced for seven years after being tagged because of editors such as ''you''. [[User:ChemNerd|ChemNerd]] ([[User talk:ChemNerd|talk]]) 13:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
::::: I am missing something here, with respect to adding references to atricles my track record is excellent [[User:V8rik|V8rik]] ([[User talk:V8rik|talk]]) 16:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
:I added a couple of references. [[User:ChemNerd|ChemNerd]] ([[User talk:ChemNerd|talk]]) 19:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
:I added a couple of references. [[User:ChemNerd|ChemNerd]] ([[User talk:ChemNerd|talk]]) 19:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Revision as of 16:37, 1 December 2017

    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    WikiProject iconChemistry Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
    Article alerts

    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    • 06 Aug 2024 - Homogeneity and heterogeneity (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 13 Aug 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
    • 01 Aug 2024 - Salt extraction process (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Walsh90210 (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 08 Aug 2024; see discussion (4 participants)

    Templates for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Featured article reviews

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    (1 more...)

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (35 more...)

    Can we agree to eradicate RCOOH (vs RCO2H)?

    This question is about one of those very unimportant issues that bug some (me) chemists: the formula for carboxylic acids. I suspect that RCOOH is archaic, but I am unsure. If we can agree on my proposal, maybe we can enter this into our MOS. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I do strongly prefer RCOOH. In a chemical structure, however, I prefer having the carboxylic acid drawn explicitly (i.e. not to condense it to –COOH). --Leyo 19:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose, the proposed formula suggests that the bonding types of the two oxygen atoms are identical. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the trouble with this is that we will have a large group of people who will come in and be annoyed by RCOOH, considering it to have been superseded in common usage by RCO2H, and we will also have a large group of people and be annoyed by RCO2H, considering it to have been superseded in common usage by RCOOH. A brief look at the multitude of basic chemistry texts I have suggests that they are both right about their preferred form being common, and both wrong about the other one having become archaic, perhaps even in their particular text or syllabus. The most reasonable course is surely to keep both in free variation, since people are going to have to be familiar with both anyway. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hear from more chemists. My annoyance is minor. It is just one of those things. No journal or textbook that I consult seems to use this construction, but maybe I am not looking in the right places. I wonder if Leyo or other adherents could cite some prominent source. Agreed that RCOOH was common many decades ago. My grandfather's books on dyes use it, for example. It's not a big deal. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IUPAC Blue Book appears to use COOH in both the 1993 version[1] and 2004 draft[2]. In some areas--admitedly rare cases unless you're discussing organic oxidants--using CO2H is clearer to the reader when trying to distinguish among acid, peroxyacid, and higher analogs (acyl tri/tetraoxides); CAS# 958758-62-8 is the pathological case. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And thinking of ambiguoity or that CO2H implies both O are equivalent, COOH could imply both O are consecutive in the structure rather than the first being a carbonyl. Hydroperoxycarbenes are an interesting area of study. But then CO2H could also be a dioxirane if you want to push into corner cases. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DMacks: CO2H Does not imply they are equivalent. There are plenty of instances of a molecular formula having multiple of a particular atom that are coordinated differently. One example is Methanium (which is actually drawn wrong on the article and I should fix at some point :D ). EvilxFish (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Georginho's way is the best: RC(=O)OH. Peace!
    (I would go with what IUPAC uses in their books.)
    Georginho (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whereas perhaps a standard should be set in order to create uniformity across all wikipedia articles I am personally more familiar with RCOOH, that being said we should probably adopt the IUPAC standard (if there is one). In reality as you said it isn't that big a deal. EvilxFish (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am chastened! Even March uses RCOOH. Sigh.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IUPAC Blue Book 2013 uses only COOH (543 hits vs 0 hits for „CO2H” doing pdf search), but in structure drawings neither COOH nor CO2H is acceptable or preferred (Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008); from the examples of esters, I think acceptable are C(O)OH and C(=O)OH, and preferred is File:Carboxylic-acid-skeletal.svg). Wostr (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out JACS or ACIE or JOC or Org Lett etc etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2017

    (UTC)

    Every publisher or even journal has its own preferred system. I accidentally saw this discussion where nobody mentioned the newest Blue Book or IUPAC recommendations about chemical structure drawing and I thought that pointing the fact that „CO2H” is not used there may be helpful. If it's not, you can ignore my comment, as I'm not en.wiki editor and it's really not my concern. Wostr (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't recall when I've ever seen it written as RCO
    2    H    . Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My organic chemistry textbook (published in 2013) uses both...GalobtterTalk to me! 07:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting reinforcements

    Hi all, I am surprised by the low quality of the QM/MM article considering the importance of the topic, before some of you run away as this is not your field of expertise ;) please could I get help on things such as WP:GNOME work as well. I have also included a todo list on the articles talk page please take a look (fix it if need be first time I have ever added one). The reviews I have referenced should be quite accessible to anyone with a chemistry background even if they are not specialists in theoretical/computational chem. Thanks EvilxFish (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal

    I am seeking comments on a proposal to change the name and composition of two of the colour categories appearing on our periodic table, as follows:

    From Polyatomic nonmetal
    C, P, S, Se    		 Diatomic nonmetal
    H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
    To Less active nonmetal
    H, C, N, P, S, Se    		 Active nonmetal
    O, F, Cl, Br, I

    The RfC can be found here. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. EvilxFish (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theislikerice/chemistry

    I thought I should bring this to the attention of the chemistry experts here.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Electroless nickel vs. Electroless nickel plating

    Does it make sense to have articles for Electroless nickel and Electroless nickel plating? Or should they rather get merged? --Leyo 07:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Method of style

    Hi everyone. I think that it is time we have a look at the method of style regarding how we treat complex compounds in articles, specifically, complexes featuring neutral ligands. We need to set out some guidelines as to when and where it is appropriate to treat a hydrate as an aqua complex in name, formula and discussion; and when and where it is appropriate to omit the hydrate. Should lability of the neutral ligand, or the ability to dehydrate the compound by heating, or homolepticity be taken into account? As a point of discussion, I'd like to refer to copper(II) sulfate, where both cases are used interchangeably. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

    Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

    Editorial: Conservation data

    The IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters.

    Dorstenia elata, a critically endangered South American herb, contained in Moraceae, the family of figs and mulberries

    Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.

    ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.

    Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
    If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
    Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article in need of attention

    Hello all. Could someone more knowledgeable than me take a look at F number (chemistry)? I don't think I recall the concept from my organic chemistry (which was some time ago). I stumbled upon it because it has been listed as an orphan for 8.5 years. Any efforts to beef it up or deorphan it would be much appreciated! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find any other refs which use F number in this way on GBooks, and it doesn't show up in my old chemistry textbook. I've PRODed the article. If this is a notable topic and I'm just missing it please remove the PROD tag and add references or point me in a direction where I might find some. Thanks! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be used and referenced in a few dozen liquid chromatography primary research papers. But I cannot see any reviews. You could probably get some information on its effects, can calculated values for several substances. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find! I'd missed those before (got swamped out by the optical "F-number" articles). I don't see anything from the last 20 years, does anyone know if this term is still used? If it's totally outdated and only a few primary papers every reference it, perhaps we should just merge to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon? Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=R.J.+Hurtubise+%22F+number%22&btnG= A merge sounds like a good idea, as although it may scrape past notability, there is not much written about the number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some details to the article, including the usefulness/application of it (rather than just measuring it) for chromatography. I found refs from multiple research groups and up through 2005, so I de-PRODed. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Iodometry

    Can someone please edit the Iodometry article? There are some sentences which sound were basically fused by mistake, like - To a known volume of sample, an excess but known amount of iodide is added, which the oxidizing agents oxidizes iodide to iodine. 93.142.92.50 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a quick cleanup - I hope that's a bit better now. Others are welcome to rework it some more. Thanks for reporting it! Walkerma (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Chembox}} name change

    Proposal: {{Chembox}} → {{Infobox chemical}}. See Template_talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article creation experiment

    FYI you may like to read Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial. The articles were posted by Carolineneil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and may require attention. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#Single purpose account for mass adding articles by a number of PhD students for paid experiment on Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An offline app for Chemistry

    Hello everyone,

    The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

    What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (minus Biographies) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

    1. Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Chemistry/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
    2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

    Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Valid criticism

    See Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist for a valid criticism of Wiki science. Far too often the articles are written for other science specialists with little thought to the general reader who might want to learn a bit, but is driven away by sci nerds talking/showing off to other sci nerds. Thoughts? Vsmith (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly at least the lead sentence and preferably the whole lead should be written in a way so that it can be understood by a wide audience. It also depends on how specialized the topic is. There is a hierarchy of articles from the general to the more specialized. More general articles should be written in a more accessible style. The linked critique above gives a couple of examples. Graphene (growing technological importance; rated high importance) and Electroweak interaction (Nobel prize; rated high importance) in my opinion fall in the more general category while nonribosomal peptide (rated low importance) is more specialized. Boghog (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Timely article. There are various issues, to expand on Boghog:
    • stuff for specialists only. Many articles are not written for general readers. I recently wrote about zirconium acetylacetonate. About 2200 papers/patents mention it, which suggests that the topic will appeal to other specialists, but not to Joe Sixpack.
    • intermediate cases. Many thousands of chemical compounds are on ingredient lists. And many thousands of processes are intrinsically chemical. Think cooking, cleaning, fuels, cosmetics, clothing. These are areas where chemistry editors can more readily help readers. And we can remind them that they live in a chemical world (and therefore need to employ more of us). One challenge is to find good sources.
    • Final point: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, to quote: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

    --Smokefoot (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some validity to the argument - but at the same time I don't think its as easy as the article makes out. The article you cite is a blog and as such is free to adopt a conversational tone when discussing things, this can be very helpful for explaining entirely new concepts. Wikipedia however tries to keep to an encyclopedic tone and that language can make technical concepts sound even more technical. That's not to say that its impossible to have an article that is technical, encyclopedic and easily understood; but it is hard. In terms of where to begin with this, to me the obvious place to start would be most popular pages in Chemistry. --Project Osprey (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree w/ project osprey. Not always the easiest to balance having explanations with conciseness. But honestly even as a science nerd I found the lead sentence in graphene absolutely horrible at explaining what graphene is. So I've rewritten it. Galobtter (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article for Creation

    Why don't we have a dedicated article to cover the topic of metallisation - the phase transition that occurs under pressurisation of a solid that most importantly results in the delocalisation of electrons leading to the appearance of metallic characteristics in the solid? I thought that this would be a relatively important article to have. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Plasmic Physics: I certainly plan to make one eventually (under the title Metal-insulator transition), but it may take years before I get around to it. You should try asking about it on the Wikiproject Physics talk page since it's more of a physics topic than a chemisty topic. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I may take on the challenge, that way you can add to it in pieces when have time. The only problem is that I know very little about it. I could also post a notification at Physics, although I believe that this is a interdisciplinary topic, relating to both chemistry and physics. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Plasmic Physics: I'm rather embarrassed to point out that the page Metal–insulator transition already exists and has existed for about a decade. I really ought to have checked to see if it already existed before posting my initial response. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

    Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

    Editorial: Annotations

    Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

    1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

    ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

    As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

    Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

    An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

    Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
    If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
    Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Short interview for the Wikipedia Facebook page about your work

    Hello,

    My name is Melody and I work on the Foundation's blog and social team. We elevate our community's work and help people better understand the facts they see on Wikipedia. As you may know, October 23 is "Mole Day," an unofficial holiday celebrated by chemists to honor Avogadro's Number. We would love to use this day as a way to help people better understand the mole, learn some facts related to the mole, and (if there's interest here) let them know about WikiProject Chemistry. If you are interested in helping with this effort or have feedback, please let me know. This is an experiment, and I'm looking forward to discussing further. (And if this doesn't work out, given the short notice, I'd love to think about a way to amplify your work in a different way.) Thank you!

    MKramer (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The underlying idea is pretty simple "I have 10g of water, I wonder how many molecules that is?" the sticking point for most people is getting your head around how big that number actually is. A mole of pennies is more money that exists in the world, a mole of marbles would cover the Earth to a depth of 50 miles, there are plenty of analogies on Google. Such analogies don't appear in our articles as they're not exactly encyclopedic but they might be a good way of engaging a new audience, a la XKCD.
    On a separate note, how did we end up with separate articles on Avogadro constant and Mole (unit)? I would have thought them fairly indivisible! --Project Osprey (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By extension, those sorts of analogies can convey just how small a molecule is. Those marbles covering the Earth 50 miles deep? That's how many molecules are in a little over a tablespoon of water. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, show and illustrate order of magnitude. Don't even try to describe ;-) , and surely without math formulae ... For example, physics is about the size range 10−20 – 10+20. Even recent: the InTheNews gravitational wave is about Neutron stars that "a teaspoon full weighs as much as ...". Unfortunately I'm not sure I can help this specific OP question. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely interested though I am not available on the 23rd, I have some great ways of representing the concept of a mole though from when I was at school years ago. EvilxFish (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Red November contest open to all


    Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest

    Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|November 2017 WiR Contest]]

    Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red|WikiProject Women in Red]]

    (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

    --Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Gilbert Stork, 1921-2017

    It appears that Gilbert Stork has sadly died at 95. Our current article on him is pretty paltry and while biographies aren't exactly my thing I'll be having a go at improving it over the coming days. Help, particularly from those of you with an organic background, would be appreciated. Here's a nice (open access) paper of amusing anecdotes about him doi:10.1002/anie.201200033 (and the fact that Angewandte would publish such a thing says enough about him). --Project Osprey (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a synthesis guy but will help out. Would appreciate it if you checked my work as well. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also are you sure he is dead? The only evidence I can find is a blog post. EvilxFish (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from Derek Lowe's blog post, I don't see it announced in the news yet either. I would generally consider Lowe a reliable source though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's up now on the Columbia website: https://chem.columbia.edu/news/gilbert-stork-1921-2017/.
    I'm too old for organic chemistry. I didn't know that his wife is also a synthetic chemist!
    Georginho (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibbs–Duhem equation

    Gibbs–Duhem equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An IP editor has attempted to add some information here, but the mathematical notation (as well as some of the later attempted explanation/reasoning) makes no sense (I've reverted it a few times on these grounds, but they seem fairly adamant). Unfortunately, I know very little about chemistry, so I thought I'd ask for some extra eyes here. There also appears to be a mild English issue which is making things more difficult. See also some discussion at WP:RD/MA#Equivalence_between_differential_expressions. Thanks! --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Peroxide reorg

    I wonder if we should not reorganize peroxide, which is a collection of information on H2O2, [O2]2-, organic hydroperoxides (ROOH), diorganic peroxides.

    A proposal:

    • make peroxide exclusively about inorganic peroxides (Na2O2, etc), guiding readers from the get-go to related articles. One slight problem is that in the US, "peroxide" means hydrogen peroxide to nonchemists.
    • hydrogen peroxide could/should absorb content from peroxide that is about H2O2.
    • Peroxy acid (about both inorganic and organic) seems to be ok.
    • split organic peroxide into
      • hydroperoxides, currently a redirect to peroxide, should be stand-alone. They are fairly common. I might need admin help and advice on making that move vs copy-paste.
      • diorganoperoxides (ROOR, not exactly sure what they should be called), but they are topical because of interest in acetone peroxide and the like. Would possibly include dibenzoy peroxide.

    Suggestions welcome. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say inorganic peroxides are what I'd expect to find at peroxide. Does peroxide usually mean inorganic peroxide to chemists? Could create the article Inorganic peroxide and make peroxide the disambiguation..  Galobtter (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those ideas are excellent. They solve a lot of problems.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Peroxide should cover the organic and covalently bound molecules exclusively. We should split off an article called Peroxide ion, which obviously covers the ion itself, the hydroperoxide ion, and salts containing these ion. I believe that Peroxide should only discuss covalent compounds which are covered in their own articles in the context of ROOR chemitry. In other words, if a comparisson isn't made, it does not belong on this article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Smokefoot's "slight problem" is actually a pretty serious one. We're not a chemistry encyclopedia, but an everyone encyclopedia. I don't think people outside of science are likely to know or care about anything except "the thing most people call peroxide, that is H2O2". And maybe they know about the bleaching agent for hair or fabric. But among science people, there are multiple other meanings (the ion, the organic class, etc.). I don't support having the simple "peroxide"-named page be a specialized article when the layperson meaning is not that, assuming a specialized WP:COMMONNAME case. Instead, I support following WP:CONCEPTDAB and having peroxide be a general top-level article with summaries of the meanings and links to each one's page. That's pretty much what Galobtter said, except I think it might be possible to write a concise intro and bit about each meaning as an article rather than just a DAB list-of-links. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd think that'd be quite a bit more useful than a simple DAB. Agree that meanings should be clear to everyone since we're an everyone encyclopaedia. Galobtter (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary of action:
    I will continue to refine as I locate further secondary and tertiary sources. Thank you for the advice, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear I just took a look at the (now old) peroxide article and it didn't really contain a summary of the different peroxides. Pretty awful article - just a random mishmash of various information. Galobtter (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I made Inorganic peroxide redirect to metal peroxide and also added a few plural redirects. Currently hydroperoxide redirects back to peroxide.. Galobtter (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) I made hydroperoxide redirect to organic peroxide, which seems to make more sense.... Galobtter (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

    Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

    WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017

    WikidataCon 2017 group photo

    Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

    WD-FIST explained

    And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

    Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

    Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
    If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
    Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific images from WSC2017

    Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Typography of primes

    How should we typeset primed locants? See for example section P-14.3.1 of IPUAC 2004 draft for systematic organic nomenclature[3] for the meaning. IUPAC uses slanted marks, which I assume are typographical prime (symbol) characters. Those are hard to type, so I see lots of WP articles (and other sources) use straight quotemarks, or sometimes set in italic font. MOS:STRAIGHT says we should not use curly quotes—and they seem less correct than the other options in this context—and blesses prime characters in some technical cases. So should we go with IUPAC, or simple keyboard, or italic-formatted to get simple keyboard to look like IUPAC? DMacks (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve always used single quote marker (') because they the easiest (and I guess most universal, we’re not all using the same keyboard setup/language and special characters can move around – this might also be a consideration for wikidata). Beyond that: how does everyone else do it? – Scifinder, Chemspider and Sigma must have had to decide this at some point. The only problem is that I don’t know how you reverse-lookup a character to find out what its ASCII is.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverse-search by copy-paste: [4] (1 character), or [5] (string). -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) :Probably better use the formal IUPAC Recommendations (Red Book, 2005) link (pdf, 377 pages):

    IR-2.12 PRIMES

    (a) Primes (′), double primes (″), triple primes (‴), etc. may be used in the names and formulae of coordination compounds in the following ways:

    (i) within ligand names, in order to differentiate between sites of substitution;
    (ii) when specifying donor atoms (IR-9.2.4.2), in order to differentiate between donor atoms;
    (iii) when specifying configuration using configuration indexes (IR-9.3.5.3), in order to differentiate between donor atoms of the same priority, depending on whether they are located within the same ligand or portion of the ligand.
    [example omitted]

    (b) Primes, double primes, triple primes, etc. are also used as right superscripts in the Kröger–Vink notation (see Section IR-11.4) where they indicate a site which has one, two, three, etc. units of negative effective charge.

    [example omitted]
    — NOMENCLATURE OF INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
    IUPAC Recommendations 2005, Red Book (2005) p36/pdf-p48
    Just as a side note: In de.wikipedia the use of primes is recommended (see de:Wikipedia:Richtlinien Chemie#Spezielle Typographie). --Leyo 21:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting: this German guideline says "Do not use the double-prime character, but repeat single-prime". -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarise the most common are
    HTML Symbol
    ′ ′
    ″ ″

    You should be able to type single, double, triple and quadruple prime symbols on Windows by holding down "alt" and typing 2032, 2033, 2034 or 2057 on the numeric keypad. (Doesn't work for me.)

    Or cut and paste these ′ ″  ‴  ⁗ .

    Or use the single prime multiple times ′′′′′

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    • Using alt-codes requires registry HKCU\Control Panel\Input Method\EnableHexNumpad to be set to type REG_SZ to value 1 and rebooting. It works for me and is really time-saving (if you memorise alt-codes); and its Alt + + + alt-code. Wostr (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    By LaTeX

    (from Prime article), quote:

    LaTeX provides an oversized prime symbol, \prime (), which, when used in super- or sub-scripts, renders appropriately; e.g., f_\prime^\prime appears as . An apostrophe, ', is a shortcut for a superscript prime; e.g., f' appears as .
    See also WP:MATHCHEM (<chem> formula writing). -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS

    From our WP:MOSNUM, searched for "prime":

    Not to be used for minute, second. Not to be used for foot, inch. Yes to be used for arcminute, arcsecond (i.e., with degrees); it says: use double prime (″) not repeated prime. Of course triple prime is not in play here. We should copy that for this question? -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Exceptions to IUPAC?

    Are there areas in chemistry that explicitly do not follow IUPAC recommandations? (not use prime?) -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Organic chemistry joins inorganics in this? -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry 2013 has Rule P-16.9 PRIMES, pp. 124–129. Technically (in pdf version) normal ' and " are used (eg. "Primes ('), double primes ("), triple primes ("'), etc. are used...") but the symbols are displayed like primes (′) etc. Also ' and " are technically used for quotation marks but looks like ‘ and ’. I can send a copy of these several pages if you want. As a side note: on the basis of Red Book 2005 and Blue Book 2013, pl.wiki Wikiproject Chemistry adopted about year ago that primes, double primes etc. are recommended. Regards, Wostr (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I do not understand some parts. You say "primes are used ... BUT the symbols are displayed like primes". The topic is, like: "within chemistry we all know what that high-upcomma means. Now what single symbol do we actually use for that?" If organic chemistry has other guidelines wrt primes, please tell. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, it's a bit late and my English is not very good. Of course there is no instruction use symbol ... to write prime in Blue Book (neither in Red Book mentioned above). I just wanted to point out that Blue Book tells the same as the Red Book – technically some symbol is used: apostrophe in Blue Book, „0” in Red Book (? that's what I got when trying to copy-paste prime from Red Book) – visually it's prime symbol.
    • "Primes ('), double primes ("), triple primes ("'), etc. are used..." is a copy-paste quotation from BlueBook in pdf to show exact symbols they used. Compare it with this image (I think they used formatting to get the visual effect of prime using normal apostrophe). So it's clear only how prime symbol should look. Using ' without formatting (cursive) is not enough and (this is my opinion) the easiest way to be typographically and visually correct is to use prime symbol ′. Also, in pl.wiki we use double prime symbol etc., but I'm not sure it's accessible. Wostr (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. I get it. I don't know the Blue Book (yet). I conclude that even you, familiar with organic chemsistry, do state that a "prime" symbol must be a true "prime" as the preiter intended. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my opinion that true prime symbol should be used. But what I'm trying to say is that IUPAC recommendations won't tell you which symbol (prime/slanted apostrophe/...) should be used as a prime in chemistry. Some IUPAC recommendations are published by RSC, some by De Gruyter (and they have different typesetters, correctors or whoever may be responsible for choosing these symbols). Also IUPAC recommendations are prepared mainly for print and Wikipedia is not – so searchability and accessibility should be taken into consideration. But still, true prime is IMHO better (I think that slanted apostrophe would not be read by screen readers, but I may be wrong). Good night, Wostr (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, IMO when IUPAC or whoever says "prime", we use "prime" and then let the graphicer (font designer) how it looks. That's all. (when we don't use aostrophe, the apostrope does not matter).
    So organic chemistry is OK too using "prime"? -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Organic chemistry uses prime too. Sorry if my earlier comments were confusing more than helpful. Wostr (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Zugänglichkeit

    I asked WT:Accessibility if they have any comments about screen-reader effects. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for widely used Windows screen readers, Versions of JAWS released in the last few years read "′", "″", "‴", and "⁗" as "prime", "double prime", "triple prime", and "quadruple prime", respectively. NVDA reads "′" as an apostrophe and reads out the other three as unknown characters; if I remember correctly, earlier versions of JAWS behaved the same way. Graham87 14:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At least on the Mac, VoiceOver reads the above symbols as "prime", "quote", "triple prime", and "prime with prime with prime with prime". iOS might be different. Edit: on the iPhone, they are read as "apostrophe", "double quotation mark", "triple prime", and "quadruple prime".Codeofdusk (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ball-and-stick model

    This key chemical article lacks references. Does anyone have got appropriate literature to be added? --Leyo 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article has been defaced with an ugly tag so I cannot do any work on it but I have noticed that the German Wiki has a link to an article (open-access pdf). Need to be able to read German though. V8rik (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      This addition has been made today. ;-) I guess that there is also some English language literature on that topic. --Leyo 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @V8rik: "The article has been defaced with an ugly tag so I cannot do any work on it..." I'm curious, what does that mean? You can't edit an article that has a note saying that it is unreferenced? ChemNerd (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! the tag prohibits me from adding any reference it all! We want to strongly discourage people just adding tags and complain instead of adding actual references. We want to strongly encourage people to pro actively add references. And it works! Someone complained in 2010 but did nothing constructive and got no results. Someone else asks a question in 2017 (and within days) with immediate results! V8rik (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior seems completely irrational to me. It is much more likely to produce the opposite result than what you purport to want. The article remained unreferenced for seven years after being tagged because of editors such as you. ChemNerd (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am missing something here, with respect to adding references to atricles my track record is excellent V8rik (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a couple of references. ChemNerd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Class projects again

    Just a heads up: it looks like there is an ongoing class project that will affect chemistry articles: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/CHEM 4150 (Fall 2017). I have reverted some off-topic additions to urea and there has been quite a bit of new content added to parabens. More to come, I'm sure. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on that Wiki Ed page, it seems their grade will depend on the state of the articles they are editing on November 28. So we can expect them to fight hard for their contributions to be included (regardless of Wikipedia norms) today, and then they will likely just walk away after that. ChemNerd (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like Wiki edu needs to get involved then. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I can tell Wiki ed does zero.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet more incoming

    Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Western/Bio 3595 AdGen Wikipedia Project (Fall) is another set of articles being dropped onto Wikipedia. The topics, very biochemical, are not quite as bizarre as those from LSU, but again the instructor does not appear to have edited in Wikipedia and is counting on us to do his dirty work.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to cross-post this to the bio/pharma communities... Is it me or are we seeing more of this every year?--Project Osprey (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One reason for proactively creating articles (and redirects) is to preempt these unsupervised student projects. Increasingly the weak classes are forced into writing articles that no one cares about (Environmental impact of silver nanoparticles). --Smokefoot (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure we can proactively cover all possible niche article titles... and even if we could I just wouldn't want to. A different proactive approach might be to write something for The Journal of Chemical Education about how to (and how not to) run these projects.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=813075887"