Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 17

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Case

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to mention, but I have taken Joel Case (associate professor of chemistry at University of Wisconsin Marathon County) to AfD, largely because of material with BLP concerns in the article history. I haven't found anything that would meet WP:PROF via Google/Google Scholar, but don't have access to chemistry publication databases, so I might be missing something. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a graduate chemistry class is editing my favorite articles

I have moved this from my talk to here as it needs wider consideration. I have written (or will very soon) to all the students concerned on their talk pages informing them of this discussion. I am willing to help them, but I would welcome others helping too, particularly with images. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bduke, I've talked with you before (above on this page) so I wonder if you can provide some insight on an unusual situation I've come across. I saw a number of accounts with similar-looking names, so I went to Special:Listusers and found 8 accounts with that name:

• Chem540grp1f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp2f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp3f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp4f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp5f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp6f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp7f08 (talk · contribs)
• Chem540grp8f08 (talk · contribs)

It's transparently obvious that these are students in an American graduate school. "Chem 540" is the course number. I take courses in Chem. 504, 511, and 531, so the numbers make sense. There are 8 groups (grp1, grp2, etc.) and f08 refers to the fall 2008 semester. The instructor evidently assigned the students to split into groups of between 2 and 4 students to work on one or two Wikipedia articles between them.

The articles of interest are:

• Transition state theory (group 1)
• Asymmetric induction and Burgi-Dunitz angle (group 2)
• Chiral Lewis acid (group 3)
• Benson group increment theory (group 4)
• Hammett equation and Taft equation (group 5)
• Halogen bond (group 6)
• Hyperconjugation (group 7)
• Pi interactions (group 8)

Here are the issues of concern to me:

1. Is it okay for accounts to be shared among three or four different people instead of just one person?
2. Can we check that the edits to these articles are in accordance with standard Wikipedia style and don't overwhelm or make redundant the material that was previously in the articles?
3. These users have uploaded multiple images, and have not responded to requests that they should provide source information. Can anything be done to bring these images into compliance?

Thanks for looking into this. (By the way, I'm curious which university this might be. It certainly isn't mine.) Crystal whacker (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some of them too. While I've seen some good additions, they need help with Wikipedia style and conventions. But I'm also worried about these likely being collective accounts, which as I understand are not allowed. --08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, both CW and Itub. I glanced at the start of this discussion before I went out this morning and I have been off WP all day. Having students edit WP is not prohibited and indeed it can be a useful educational approach which we should encourage. The addresses do look like groups but they may be very small groups and they could be considered as the name of the group spokesperson. I'll try to look more at them later, but welcome comment here. We need to get in contact with the instructor if we can. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Collective accounts are not allowed? You must be joking. An IP from some Jr. high school library is left open for all students to use, if it doesn't vandalise. And too often, even if it does. What could possibly be different if it were to register, and pass out the password?

Hey, I know, why don't we declare all the members of these each student account meatpuppets of each other, on grounds that they all know the same things about chemistry? Then, we can treat the individuals as though they were single accounts. Oh, wait-- we're doing that already, automatically. Bummer. SBHarris 09:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit inconsistent, but in fact IPs are treated different from registered accounts in more than one way. The rule about not sharing accounts is written at WP:NOSHARE. --Itub (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "NOSHARE" is a sensible policy for long-term account usage. If I were sharing this account with my roommate for the foreseeable future, it could lead to all kinds of problems: you wouldn't know whom you're talking with. If you see a signature at the end of this posting, you may not know who I am, but you do know I'm the same person as "Crystal whacker" in every other place on Wikipedia. I think communication benefits from simple approaches to continuity of character.

However, these folks don't really know what they're doing, don't know about the account-sharing no-no, and in their context it doesn't really make sense to bother them. It's evident that they're using the accounts to collaborate on a group of articles, and that they will retire the accounts in a few weeks when the semester ends. I suspect most of them do not have Wikipedia accounts (in my school it's not popular), but if any of them do edit Wikipedia, they can do it under their "own" username and it wouldn't bother anyone. So I would recommend not to make an issue of the account sharing, and certainly not to block these users who are contributing good encyclopedic content. If necessary, refer to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: if the rules prevent you from allowing someone else to improve Wikipedia, ignore them.

I did try to figure out who these students are. "Chemistry 540" means different things at different schools. I didn't find a "Chemistry 540" corresponding to "physical organic chemistry," which is the subject of interest. The editing times of the students suggest that they are probably in the United States (which matches the writing style and my general instinct). At this point, the only way to figure out who these people are is to ask nicely and hope they answer. (In theory we could ask an administrator to look up their IP address, but that doesn't seem worth the trouble.) Crystal whacker (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone should contact them at their Talk pages about our "standards for publication". The artwork looks decent (probably they are required to use an ACS standard templates), but the references are without titles and without DOI's. Also, we should encourage citations to reviews and booky things vs primary lit.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The participants in this course and their instructor might like to look at Wikipedia:School and university projects. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• we should in general encourage student participation. Students should also be encouraged to use actual literature not copy&paste reviews (they should learn something from this experience). Also hint at the existence of free molecular graphic editors such as BKchem V8rik (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. The Chem540 class is mine. It is called "Organic Principles" but as you have deduced, the material is largely classic physical organic chemistry. I am an assistant professor in the chemistry department at the University of Michigan and I initiated this project this term. The idea was for the students to work collaboratively (in groups of 3) on improving (or creating) a site in wikipedia that has relevance to our course material. I think it was quite successful, though I now realize that there are complexities to updating a WP site to which I was originally unaware. I will check out the Wikipedia site for school projects and I am happy to get feedback on how to improve this project for future classes. I will say that I encouraged the students to use original literature for references and that all the figures were made by the students themselves. Our goal was not to make it a "Chemical Review" article but to give more information, and in many cases, updated examples of usefulness. ajm_mich —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Welcome to the WikiProject Chemistry. It seems it worked pretty well for a first attempt. It looks as if one of the biggest problems was lack of knowledge about how to document uploaded images. I think some of these can be recovered if you can let us know about them. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All images were created by the students in chemdraw or similar programs. In some cases, they were trying to reproduce an image from a paper. What do I need to do to restore the images? Also, the site on Benson Group Increment Theory was proposed for deletion. Why? Thanks! Ajm mich (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)ajm_mich

I suggest you list the images here. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I PRODded Benson group increment theory for several reasons. The PROD was refused, and I'm letting the matter lie as the article doesn't seem to do any harm (apart from raising my blood pressure, which is hardly a wikicrime if I must be honest about it). My problems are the following:

• to be frank, I've never heard of this "theory" and the article doesn't give me any information about who actually uses it.
• the "theory" is obviously a flavor of quantitative free energy relationship, yet it doesn't discuss any other such relationships: the Hammett equation anyone? The Brønsted catalysis equation?
• the authors of the article seem to think that the point of such relationships is to save laboratory time: "without conducting tedious experimentation" is the phrase used. QFERs are used for such purposes, but that is hardly their main goal. Once again, the article doesn't give any indication that Benson's method is actually used by anyone.

Putting students (even grad-school students) onto theory articles is risky business: most do not have the necessary critical overview to explain the subject well, which is why they're students and not teachers! You might like to bear that in mind when you're grading the assignments! Physchim62 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with objection one raised by Physchim62, the article called Heat of formation group additivity already exists for some time. V8rik (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if Benson group increment theory should be merged into Heat of formation group additivity and the article cleaned up. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I wasn't planning on pushing the proposed deletion any further. All the same, a merge and cleanup would seem in order. The topic has been the subject of a Chem. Rev. paper (cited in both articles), so I shall withdraw my notability objections. Physchim62 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Chem 538

FYI -- I am about to start this project again (with some improvements) in my new course, Chem 538 "organic chemistry of macromolecules" here at the University of Michigan. I was planning on using group usernames (1 name for 2 students) like I did before. For example, "chem538grp1w09" would be one. If the students do not use this after this course, can we still do this? This term I will hand out more information on how to properly update wikipedia and create and upload images (and point them to the tutorials by Bill Wedemeyer at MSU!). I am open to more suggestions for improvements if you have any. There are 6 groups this term and I am going to let them do either a topic or person in polymer chemistry. I will post the list of topics here if you want to keep an eye on them :-) Ajm mich (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at Schools and Universities Projects? It might have useful information for you. I'd suggest that the first thing your students do, is to come by, say hello, and introduce their planned work. That would be better than for us to search for them. There're lots of us here, and being aware of who they are and what they're doing might allow us to help them better. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rifleman, you don't follow your own advice! Physchim62 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This project is nearing its end for this semester and some of my students have posted their new/revised sites online. The topics this term are:

• Fire-safe polymers
• Shape Memory Polymers
• Gel permeation chromatography
• Anionic addition polymerization
• Step-growth polymerization
• Covalent organic framework

Please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions/concerns/comments. Ajm mich (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Those pesky images

Not to get sidetracked with account sharing issues: OrphanBot has already removed this image: Image:Crystal1.jpg. I suspect that the students made these images themselves in most cases. It's within a first-year graduate student's ability to draw something like that with help from software. Can anything be done to rescue the image, or will it be deleted? Crystal whacker (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's obviously an image that's been drawn for WP: the students themselves ca save it by following the instructions on their talk page. Otherwise, unfortunately, it will be deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thio-

I think this unreferenced article is wrong in the first paragraph, claiming "The prefix thio-... denotes that there is at least one extra sulfur atom added to the... root word". I've always thought thio indicates sulfur replacing oxygen, as in thiosulfate, thioether, thioester, thiourea etc.

The specific example given, thiocyanate, doesn't make sense - it's cyanate with O replaced by S, not cyanide with S added. However, thiocyanate is sometimes called thiocyanide, I gather.

Any comments?

Ben (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What you say about "thio" implying that S replaces O sounds right (and "thia" implies S replacing CH_n). Of course IUPAC probably has published reams of rules on this topic, if you can keep from falling asleep reading them.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're right too. Chris (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help with the ASCB workshop

Hi everybody, I thought I'd ask our sister project for some help. The American Society for Cell Biology is hosting a workshop this Tuesday, the 16th, to give their scientists a crash course in editing Wikipedia (see User:Proteins for more details). The workshop will focus on creating biochemistry and cell biology articles with the aim of quickly improving them to GA or eventually FA quality. Proteins and I are running the workshop, but we could benefit from your help! We'd like to find friendly, online Wikipedians who will greet the newbie scientists and offer to help them with their nascent articles.

The workshop will run from 12:30-2:30pm local San Francisco time. We will be speaking until ~1pm, and the participants won't start their user pages until 12:45pm at the earliest. We'll ask them to add the template {{ASCB workshop}} to their user page, which will add them to the Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants category. Then you'll be able to see who's participating and welcome them. Other help with categorization, finding/formatting images and references, etc. would be great as well.

Any help bringing these fellow scientists into the community would be much appreciated! Tim Vickers (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Travelling for the next two weeks, so won't be able to be there. If they're going to hang around past this session, I'd be happy to help. If there's a page for them to post questions, or if individuals need a bit help, do let me know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be available until 2100 UTC (1pm SF time, if I've got my sums right), but I try to remember to drop in. I actually studied some cell biology at university… Physchim62 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, we're doing an presentation first, so they probably won't start popping up on line immediately. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam links?

Somebody should look at this user's contributions. It may be well intentioned, but as far as I can tell they have put links to the Strem catalogue for about 2 dozen organometallic compounds. Don't have time to revert them all myself, but somebody might feel the need. It might be well intentioned, but it might not; I'm sure it violates some guidelines somewhere... Chris (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts

Just a little heads up, you might be interested in having Article Alerts for the Chem project. It's an automatic article monitoring system that notifies you about stuff going on for articles, such as PR, AfD, etc... You can find a sample output here User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts#Samples. And if you're not interested, well move on as if nothing happened. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks interesting, I've added a subscription to the alerts for this project. --Itub (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are these alerts going to show up? shoy (reactions) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ionic structures banned?

Since when was it decided that images like File:Ammonium-formate-2D.png should be replaced by crystal structures?

Ben (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask that user or inform him/her at least on this discussion? --84.75.159.136 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to check if the issue has been discussed here before. I've followed your suggestion here.

Ben (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not policy either here or at Commons. It's just one person's opinion. Personally, I think 2D images of inorganic compounds are a good idea because they quickly convey information about composition and connectivity, even if they do not present a "real" cystallographic form. Crystal structures are certainly enhancements when used in addition to a 2D structure, but shouldn't be considered as replacements. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(BK)To clarify: I didn't mean that the images should be deleted, but within articles crystal structures should be used. Secondly, there is the Commons:Category:Ionic structures construction kit which I think is the better solution. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in most cases, I don't think the "ionic structures construction kit" can be used within {{chembox}}. Since this infobox is used in nearly every chemical article here, I don't think the kit is all that useful to us. Some of our chemicals articles have a 2D structure, some have an image of a crystallographic representation, and some have a photo of the chemical itself. Some articles have more than one of these. In my opinion, the ideal comprehensive graphic representation of an inorganic compound would include all three - and this can be easily accommodated in the chembox template. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "ionic structures construction kit" is used in chemoboxes in de-WP. Here, it can't be used in the chemobox as the parameter is only "filename.ext", that does not allow adding structures composed by multiple images like in de-WP. --Leyo 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the real question is not so much about ionic vs covalent, it is about extended structures, TiO₂, NaCl, diamond. In the ideal world we would show (i) one or a few unit cells and, for the future Pefectpedia, (ii) coordination polyhedra for the constituent atoms. This kind of work would be really useful for YBa₂Cu₃O₇. For polyatomic anions and cations, we have been depicting these as "gas-phase structures," showing the small anion or small cation as completely dissociated, e.g. PPh₄Cl (see below). The problems arise in the "gray area" say where the polyatomics are few, e.g. sodium carbonate or sodium perchlorate. Editors want to show the structures of these small anions, but I think that it should be shown in the text, not the ChemBox.

.

There is a cultural component to imagery: inorganic and materials chemists are sensitive to more realistic structures, whereas those that use these things as reagents tend to worry less. Conversely organic and biofolk are more attentive to stereochemistry. Wikipedia seems to be coping okay with the evolving situation. One of these days we should have plan a trans-national wikiproject aimed at depicting archetypal structures. This project would be best done by involving other language wikis since structure is universal.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some nice examples of coordination geometry on Commons, e.g. File:NaCl polyhedra.png or File:CaF2 polyhedra.png. I've started uploading similar things (e.g. Commons:Category:Strontium iodide) but have only added them to a few articles, like copper monosulfide. I'm working on an extended image for tetraphenylphosphonium chloride.

Maybe Smokefoot is right and "gas-phase structures" of ion pairs would be better placed in the body text of the article rather than the chembox, but I still think such images are useful, particularly to casual readers who will appreciate an explanation (or reminder) of the most fundamental building blocks of a given compound. I wouldn't like to see them disappear completely.

Ben (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactivity Series

The concept of a reactivity series is taught in UK at GCSE and A Level as a "practical" guide to the relative reactivity of metals with H₂ and C thrown in for comparison purposes. In the US it appears from the discussion that the term reactivity series may be used as a synonym for the electrochemical series, (redox potentials) - could a US educator clarify the position?. To avoid cross editing by well meaning students from the UK and US (which has certainly corrupted the original "correct" UK list and may not be in line with US list either), I suggest that we rename the existing article to "Reactivity series-UK" and, if necessary, create a new article "Reactivity series-US". -Axiosaurus (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is saying that lithium is more reactive than potassium, or that sodium is less reactive than calcium (see current version), should be thrown into a swimming pool with suitably large quantities of these metals! Let's not even bother with a U.S. version (if such a beast exists) – it can be dealt with by a headnote {{distinguish|Electrochemical series}}, where future chemists can marvel at the fact that dinitrogen is "more reactive" (more positive E^o) than c(a)esium! Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Good grief! What a mess. I have now corrected the simple list adding Li below Na and sourcing it from a GCSE site. I will look at the longer list is a while.

I am not convinced of this difference between the UK version and the US version. However I may now be out of touch with the UK situation. In Australia we do not seem to see that distinction. The UK reactivity series should be, in my opinion. simply the the ordering of the table of standard electrode potentials for the metals only. If it is separated from the electrode potentials it is the order such that a metal above can normally replace a metal below it. "Normally" loosely means standard concentrations so they should be the same. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the main table to agree with a source that broadly covers the same elements as the list that was in the article. My login dropped out so it is an IP edit. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The following is a US based list, [1] showing the activity series of metals and this mirrors the sequence of standard electrode potentials, (see Standard electrode potential (data page)) where Li (3.04 E°(V) is more active than K (2.93) and Na (2.71). I think that this is what is taught in the US.(We need some US based educator input!) The UK reactivity series list is not a listing of metals in standard electrode potential sequence, for example the position of Li is anomalous as is Pt and this is where the confusion US v UK comes from. See [2] for a how the list is used in teaching reactivity topics, such as displacement, reactivity to water, oxygen, reduction of oxides, corrosion etc.

I still think we need to rename the article to prevent US students rushing to "correct" it. IMO we also need an article devoted to the so called activity series, (aka elecrochemical series, aka electromotive series), the redirects to Standard electrode potential (data page) are misleading as pointed out by Physchim62, however I have a vague recollection that such an article was discussed at some point in the past and rejected. --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why the US version can not be also added to the article provided the differences are clearly explained and properly referenced. I merely fixed it so the tables were from a source not just OR. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a discussion on the anomalous electrode potential of lithium: Greenwood and Earnshaw has a paragraph on it, so I shall see what I can do once I've finished Christmas shopping… In general, the point needs to be made that standard electrode potentials only refer to standard conditions, and that not all chemical reactions are conducted under standard conditions. If you want to teach undergrad chemists to think, give 'em a table of electrode potentials and ask them the product of adding hydrochloric acid to manganese dioxide: then teach them Scheele's preparation of chlorine!

As for the U.S. version, we already have it better at Standard electrode potential (data page), which actually is what it says it is, rather than a poor sop pretending to be "more accurate" but actually mixing incongruent concepts. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some expert advice?

Hello WikiProject Chemistry. I come to ask a question regarding the article Salt analysis. In its present form, it obviously requires some serious clean-up and translation into an encyclopedic tone but, as a humble social scientist, I cannot tell whether or not the subject itself is of encyclopedic merit or is original research. I would hate to nominate it for deletion only to find that is a very noteworthy and well-known topic; I would also be loathe, however, to allow original research or unencyclopedic material to remain. Anyhow, if anyone could offer any advice/suggestions/help, I would appreciate it. Cheers, CP 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it by this name, but the content at a quick glance sounds right. Don't care for the snarky last line, though. Also, WP:NOT a cookbook, so there is no need to reproduce a table. Redirected it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good move. It was a howto based on Vogel's book. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/attention/time! Cheers, CP 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Search tool

I just want to inform you that a platform to access the on-line databases was developed on the toolserver. This tool was developed by de:Magnus and is based on the CAS number and used a formated url like this one: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/cas.php?cas=74-90-8&language=en. The links on this platform allow to access directly to the component page of the databases. Other databases can be added with Template:CasTemplate. The french wiki developed a specific template fr:modèle:CAS which checks the validity of the CAS number and opens the tool on the toolserver. This template is implemented in the infobox of each chemical (see fr:Méthanol and click on the CAS number in the infobox). Biglama (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 11:12, 9. Jan. 2009 (CET)

SUPER!!! Can I suggest will kill two birds with one stone (or one Stone even), and roll this out immediately for CAS-verified CAS numbers? Currently the verified numbers (marked by the line "| CASNo_Ref = {{cascite}}" in the chembox) are shown in green, but this is getting us into some trouble as some colour-blind people can't read them… If we change the coding to use Magnus's tool, we will still be able to see at a glance if the number has been checked, but without annoying other areas of WP. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just stumbled across this earlier this week for 7104-38-3, this is very interesting to us. Can we discuss it on IRC on Tuesday, along with the wider validation effort? Walkerma (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. First the template to access the databases is already available: Magnus modified it (see Template:CAS). Then the control done by the french template only checks that the Cas number is built correctly but not that the number is on the good page. Biglama (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:CAS is not very widely used – only within text, or on pages which don't have a chembox for some other reason. It would be better, IMHO, to fix the formatting into the guts of the chembox, as that way the raw CASRN is still available for data-scrapers. As for the problem of making sure that the right CASRN is on the right page, we have a workgroup dedicated to doing just that: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation. Most of the errors we're seeing are correct CASRNs on the correct page but incorrectly described (e.g. the CASRN for an anhydrous salt described as the number for a hydrate, or the CASRN for a racemate being described as the nuber for one of the enantiomers), rather than the sort of error that the French template would pick up. Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydronium

Hydronium has shown up at WP:RM to be renamed to Hydroxonium and subsequently redirect to the Hydron article. See Talk:Hydronium 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus_NMR

I've never found it harder to start a new article... Help needed! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider a standard NMR table-template, which could be applied to a variety of isotope-specific NMR articles. The table might include: natural abundance, receptivity vs ¹H and vs ¹³C, nuclear magnetic moment, something about quadrupolar nuclei (where applicable), spin (I), chemical shift range, standard reference cmpds (TMS etc). Also we might find greater acceptance for "³¹P NMR Spectroscopy, vs the jargony "Phosphorus NMR." Others might have ideas on the ideal table. Such articles would likely be widely consulted by students. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing when I saw PC's comment on γ. An NMR box, perhaps? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Electron FAC

This article has been proposed as a featured article. It is listed under the Chemistry WikiProject, so please take a look and comment here. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue came up during the FAC:

• "Chemical bonds between atoms were explained in 1916 by Gilbert Newton Lewis, as the interactions between their constituent electrons." (Interactions between electrons are always repulsive, so could hardly explain chemical bonding: the Lewis model of covalent bonding is based on the sharing of electrons between atoms.)

I've been told that the quotes statement is true, and it seems to be to the best of my understanding, but apparently this reviewer holds it as dubious. Could somebody help? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhs (167) - Ust (173)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium. Elements 167 to 173 have been sent for deletion as pure speculation. Note that even the chemical properties cannot be predicted, since some theories say that no electrons can be added to the electron shells beyond 139. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Goals amendment

Is it possible to amend the goals section? I suggest including more pages relating to chemistry and environmental issues. Chemistry is integral to environmental issues--many do not realize this and therefore do not understand the issues as well. Since the environment is more widely talked about presently than several years ago, it seems appropriate to be a priority in this project's scope. Freefighter (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest some specific articles, so we can take a look at them? Work towards the goals has never been too active here, but perhaps you could get a few listed here. We tried to limit it to things that would be considered the real core of chemistry, though, so it should probably only be very few articles. Walkerma (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the goals (#7) of WikiProject Chemicals addresses environmental pollutants. Perhaps Freefighter could suggest some individual chemicals there. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydrino theory → Blacklight Power, Inc.

Hydrino theory is up for renaming again... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

I take requests for drawing molecules and reaction schemes. You can make a request here --DFS454 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request. BTW: I think this page should be cleaned up a little. --Leyo 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also add yourself here. --Leyo 14:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

pH diagram

Does anyone know the English word for Hägg-Diagramm? Hägg diagram, Speciation diagram, pH diagram, …? Or is there even already an article present covering this topic (other than Speciation of ions)? --Leyo 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a few examples in acid dissociation constant, where we use the term "species distribution diagram". I can't find a specific article though. Note as well that the examples on enwiki are only singly-logarithmic, unlike the Hägg diagrams on dewiki: is this important? Physchim62 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about creating a new category on Commons, but I don't know yet which name is best. --Leyo 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The newly created category can be found at Category:Speciation diagrams. --Leyo 09:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

List of chemical compounds with unusual names has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that a centralized discussion of "Lists of unusual things" is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things. shoy (reactions) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Glass

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible and useful to consider the article Glass (and all other articles in the Category Glass) within the chemistry project. Among all projects, chemistry seems to be the most appropriate to me, and I doubt that at present an independent project could be started based on the glass topic or materials science alone. The article Glass has currently only B-quality, but its importance was rated as top, which I think should stimulate to improve it significantly. Among the things to is in my opinion the following:

• Check if all statements have appropriate citations
• Check the scientific, technological, historic, and art content
• The article should be fun to read, also for a layperson

What do you think? Would there maybe even a collaboration of the month possible? Thank you. --Afluegel (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Periodic table (extended)

Periodic table (extended) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing pharmacology

I have started a discussion regarding how to categorize pharmacology at WP:PHARM:CAT. Perhaps some of you could participate in the discussion as well? kilbad (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrado Malanga

Is this a vanity piece? Or a UFO abduction fan piece? I stumbled across it while searching for 2-chloro-4,6-dimethoxy-1,3,5-triazine; I've never seen such an extensive publication list for any chemist before! Pisa is a major university, but I don't think this list is appropriate even if the guy is notable. The page got 314 hits last month. How should we proceed? Walkerma (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He does not seem notable as a chemist, so notability lies on the UFOs. It needs to go to the pseudoscience folks. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just WP:PRODded it. As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet WP:PROF or even WP:BIO as a chemist or as a ufologist. Yilloslime (t) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the whole 'further reading' section to the talkpage. Such lists are inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The PROD has been contested but I restored Dirk's edit which has also been reverted. Is it really sufficiently unsourced and not notable to go to AfD? --Bduke (Discussion) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The person who contested the prod is a new user (RasterFaAye (talk · contribs)) whose sole contribution to wikipedia thusfar has been to remove to remove prods without comment, despite a few warnings. I think the article needs to go to AfD and the user needs to be referred to WP:AN/I. I'm too busy at work right now to do either of those, though. Yilloslime (t) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrado Malanga‎.Yilloslime (t) 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannula transfer

New article, welcome comments and edits! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice article but it appears to approach the gray zone where Wikipedia serves as a manual. The textbook part of Wikipedia would welcome this article also.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of the proton article

See Talk:Proton#Why so short? for the current discussion on expanding that article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemical warfare

I have nominated Chemical warfare for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Free energy perturbation

Could someone have a look at rewriting Free energy perturbation for clarity. I marked it as confusing half a year ago, and there has been no editing since. It is not accessible to the lay reader. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation nominated as a Featured Article

Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated as a featured article. If you have the time and the inclination to review it, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. In particular, a review of its Mechanism section would be appreciated, as that contains some details about the chemistry involved. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Xe

There is a suggestion to move Blackwater Worldwide to Xe and moving that page to Xe (disambiguation) 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cellulose structure

Hi, it was pointed out on Talk:Cellulose that our structure is incorrect; I have since replaced it with the correct . However there is a concern that the space-filling images and hydrogen-bond images shown on Cellulose are also incorrect. Could somebody please check these? Thank you, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They probably are incorrect, I made them ages ago based on that erroneous skeletal formula.

If someone can point me in the direction of the correct structure, I'll made some 3D images.

Ben (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clark electrode

The current Wikipedia article (17feb09) on the Clark electrode shows an electrode reaction of O2 + 2 e- + 2 H2O => H2O2 + 2 OH- I expected instead a reaction of O2 + 4 e- + 2 H2O => 4 OH-

Is there really a net production of H2O2? I haven't heard of that before. If not, is at least the existence of H2O2 as intermediary product proven (that is then further converted through H2O2 + 2e- => 2 OH-)? Even if H2O2 exists as intermediary, the important net equation would have 4 electrons for each O2 molecule, and should be shown that way, because the oxygen sensing relies on measuring all the electrons.

Could someone who has experience with Wikipedia editing look into my questions and, if needed, change the article?

Thanks,

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Acyl chloride versus acyl halide?

I've attempted to improve the acyl chloride reaction, now finding it has quite a bit of overlap with the acyl halide article. Should we redirect acyl halide into acyl chloride, making acyl halide a subsection? Acyl chlorides are afterall, the most significant of the acyl halides. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky one! Acyl fluorides are used quite a bit in organofluorine chemistry, but there are many reactions of those which are quite specialized. I agree that acyl bromides are little used, except as intermediates in the Hell-Volhard-Zelinsky halogenation, and I've never seen an acyl iodide discussed. So overall, I'm really unsure, sorry! Walkerma (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't acetyl iodide an important intermediate in the Monsanto process?

Ben (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ben, you're absolutely right, I'd forgotten! I guess the lesson is "Never say never" especially when you're getting senile like me! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Science FAC symposium

I'm letting you guys know about it because a lot of what is said there is also relevant for you guys. Plus your feedback would definitely be both relevant and appreciated.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mannaric acid is NOT achiral

In the text it is stated that upon oxidation of L-Mannose or D-Mannose a Manneric acid which is Achiral is produced, this can not be since all the stereo centers are (S) for D-Mannose derived acid and (R) for L-Mannose derived acid.

Just want to say hello...

A big hello to everyone here! I am "Ylidene" and a newbie to wikipedia. I am an organometallic chemist trying my best to promote chemistry in general, which is my passion. I hope to do so by using this platform. Being new to this, I would be grateful for any advice, help and suggestions. So feel free to drop me a line if you want. Cheers. Ylidene (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ylidene, Welcome to Wikipedia! My advice: just get started on creating new content. Do you already have an article in mind? V8rik (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ylidene, maybe you can write about haptotropic rearrangements? That word appears on wikipedia only once, in Indenyl effect, but I always thought it was such a cool subject, here's a quick google hit for those who don't know what it's about. --Cubbi (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ACS journals

There is a flood of copyrighted material from journal web pages being added to articles on ACS journals. Webchemist was doing this and is an employee of the ACS. I discussed this on their talk page, User talk:Webchemist. Now there are edits from User:Coffeenutter to several journals. In fixing some of these I came across copyrighted material that had been added earlier. These articles need watching and work. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The quality of these edits is very poor, the copyrighted material in ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces was not even quoted. By the way, the journal started in 2009 and therefore not notable V8rik (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have prod'ed it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I routinely wikilink journal titles, on the premise that all scholarly journals are inherently notable. So I'm not in favor of deleting it, so long as there are no copyvios, and the material can be salvaged to our MOS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I am generally an inclusionist, I do not agree here. Like any other article, journal articles need independent sources. For almost all such articles, the only independent sources referenced are the impact factor, which is a good source that shows the journal has been well noticed. A journal that has been started only this year should wait until it has been noticed before it has an article. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Making our style guide official

We agreed on IRC that it's about time we ratified the use of our style guide. Please can everyone take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft and comment, discuss and edit, so we can get this fixed up ready for use? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC) I meant to mention, we will also discuss this on IRC at channel #wikichem on freenode on Tuesday, March 3rd at 1600h UTC (11am US ET, 1700h CET), all are welcome. Walkerma (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)