Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request

Distinction required between the types images requested?

Maybe we need to make a distinction between the types images requested, as I'm not always certain what people are requesting. For example does the request for "Picture of a grignard reagent" refer to a photo taken in the lab, or a chemical structure? In this case I'm guessing photo - but I could be wrong. The requests for "Buckminsterfullerene in benzene" is almost certainly a request for a photo of a plum coloured solution. Hence why I think it might be useful for some distinction. HappyCamper - I've used your examples, as you are active on this page (I'm not picking fault with you honest!).

I can envisage 3 main requests:

• Request for a chemical structure - such as image:TMP chemical structure.png, etc.
• Request for photos of chemicals or chemical phenomena - such as Photoelectron spectra, Buckminsterfullerene in benzene, etc .
• Request for a photos or diagrams of chemical apparatus - such as image:Sublimation_apparatus.png), Oil bubbler, etc.

Your views please and sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section.

Quantockgoblin 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a bit of history about this page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Image_wishlist. Hmmm...I don't think we thought too much about this. Sure, I don't see what harm it could be to be more specific, just so long as it doesn't complicate things too much. Having 3 types of image requests would be reasonably harmless I would say :-) Do you want to make the sections, or should I? --HappyCamper 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

--HappyCamper, I agree with you about keeping it simple. I'm happy for you to do the changes -- Quantockgoblin 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made some changes...I think it's okay. --HappyCamper 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks Quantockgoblin 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what the difference is between:

• Space filling models, line models, reaction mechanisms

and

• Chemicals

Do we mean "photo" when we say "Chemicals" and "diagram/graphic" when we say "Space filling models, line models, reaction mechanisms"? -- Quantockgoblin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how I understand it. Fvasconcellos 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case. I propose changing the title to be more clear e.g. "Chemical (photo)" -- Quantockgoblin 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Fvasconcellos 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Redrawing complex images—What's the policy on redrawing complex images from copyrighted sources? There are two diagrams in

• Funk, Colin D. (30 November 2001). "Prostaglandins and Leukotrienes: Advances in Eicosanoid Biology". Science. 294 (5548): 1871–1875. doi:10.1126/science.294.5548.1871. Retrieved 2007-01-08.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) (.pdf format)

that I'd really like to have for the Eicosanoid page. They need to be updated a little – some more research has come in since they were published. With text, I understand that long, verbatim quotes can violate copyright. But with an image, if somebody redraws the image (with different layout, but the same arrows connecting the same ideas, and giving credit for the idea) is it legal and honest? If it's OK, would someone like to work on this?

(I've asked this question already in a couple of fora but gotten no substantial answer.) (Is this the right page for this request / question?) – David.Throop 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since David's talking about copyrights, here's my question - what copyrights are applicable for simple chemical structures and diagrams? I am of the opinion that they all should fall under {{pd-ineligible}} because I don't think you can copyright a structure of a known molecule. Comments? --Rifleman 82 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it (this is not intended to be legal advice), copyright is vested in an "original work". In the UK an "original work" arises from the "skill, labour or judgement" of the author in making their work. Thus so long as you have invested sufficient "skill, labour or judgement" of your own, in making your work, (rather than say a screen capture or photocopy) then you have copyright in your work. To infringe copyright you have to take a "substantial part" of their "skill, labour or judgement" of another author's work.

Copyright certainly does not reside in an idea alone. For example, the first person to take a photo of themselves apparently holding up The Leaning Tower of Pisa, can not prevent others from taking a photo in which they appear to be holding up The Leaning Tower of Pisa. Each person has a copyright in their own image and can prevent others from copying that specific photo they took.

I think as long as you are not barefaced screen-capturing/scanning or reproducing that image, and you are merely using these images as a reference sources, as the basis for your image, then I don't think you infringe copyright, provide you don't take too much "skill, labour or judgement" from those other authors, and so long as you also invest your own "skill, labour or judgement" in making your own image.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.111.131 (talk • contribs)

So what skill, labor, or judgement is required to draw a structure of benzene? If any, it probably is trivial so can an of a structure of benzene be copyrighted? Is the structure an original work? Can the discoverer of the chemical structure, being the first to publish, copyright the image? --Rifleman 82 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that a drawing of simple image of a benzene ring is not sufficient "skill, labour, or judgement" to enjoy copyright. For example you can get copyright on a short poem (only a few lines long), but a single sentence or even a single word is unlikely to carry copyright status. If it did, you'd be in breach of copyright for using simple new-ish words like 'disco'.

Even if there were sufficient "skill, labour, or judgement" in a drawing of a benzene ring, this would not prevent you from drawing your own benzene ring, provided that you did not reproduce the image by copying it - e.g. a photocopy. For example there must have been 1000s of postcards of the Statue of Liberty produced over the years. Each photo havening it's own copyright, despite the same subject matter being taken from the same angle. The first person to take that photo, from that angle, would not have copyright of any photo taken of the Statue of Liberty taken from that angle even if standing at the same spot.

I suppose if someone discovered a new enzyme and rendered it in 3D, then they would have copyright in that image. But, there would be nothing stopping you from taking the X-ray data, or using a molecular modelling program, and generating your own image of the enzyme, even if it ended up looking identical to the first image produced, as you will have used your own "skill, labour, or judgement" to make the new image.

Another example - if you did a lot of reading about the Krebs cycle and produced a diagram of all the possible pathways, you'd get copyright in that new image, despite the fact it is likely to look very similar to other versions of the Krebs cycle that have been drawn in the past by other authors.

Furthermore, there is a safeguard in copyright law which means that if there is only one way to express the idea, then the expression is the idea - and ideas can not be copyrighted, just the expression of those ideas. I believe this is called the merger doctrine.

Well, I consulted a professor of graphic design who has published about copyright and fair use. She says, authoratively "It's a gray area." She advises me to write the author and get permission to copy. Which I'll do. David.Throop 15:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Drugs/Structural diagrams/Requested

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs/Structural_diagrams/Requested

I've noticed that the above have their own request page for images of molecules. I wonder if the two pages should be merged. I also think that the molecules they have been drawing may not be as well drawn as they could be, especially with regard to stereochemistry (maybe a little unfair?). However, having two forums might lead to a divergent practice. I wonder if any other molecule request pages exist?!

I don't think there would be a problem—that page has been inactive for a long time. Fvasconcellos 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I though that too, but this turned up today:

Ampligen, C28 H40 N9 O25 P3

-- Quantockgoblin 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Don't know what to do about that, then... We could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs. Fvasconcellos 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps {{drugbox}} could be modified to add drug articles that don't have images to Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing the way that {{chembox new}} does. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be very useful. It might make the category huge, though—but I think the benefits would outweigh the bother :) Any ideas on how it could be done? Fvasconcellos 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We could ask Dirk, considering he added that functionality to {{chembox new}}. But maybe he's getting tired of my template requests by now.  :) I'll suggest it at Template talk:Drugbox first, too. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

R-Groups numbering

I've notice that the numbering of R-groups is often given in subscript by editors e.g. .

I think it is more clear to give this numbering in superscript. e.g.

Subscript is usually used to indicate the number of substituents (e.g. -NR₂, might be misinterpreted to mean a Nitrogen attached to two R groups). By using superscript, any possible confusion is avoided (i.e. -NR² means a -R² group attached to Nitrogen. --Quantockgoblin 10:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry pages needing pictures - tagging worthwhile?

From the project page I see that the following is listed:

... Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures; pages transcluding {{Chemical drawing needed}} automagically categorises pages which have a the request template into this category (replace incorrect drawings with this template).

I check this category page but does anyone else? If I tag chemical pages that I believe need an image, am I wasting my time or is it likely that someone will act on these requests? Is it simply better to post a request on the project page? The tag has the advantage that it cuts all the admin out. -- Quantockgoblin 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I do, every day, and I think it is a great idea :) I've added structures to, and I'm not exaggerating, dozens of articles thanks to this category. Fvasconcellos 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! I got my wrist slapped last night for 'over tagging'. The suggestion was that no one would act on the request and the tag would just clutter the page up. There might be an argument for the tag being put into the talk page (comments?). In any case since you alone have drawn nearly more images than everyone else put together, I'll take your comments to be a green light to continue tagging -- Quantockgoblin 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I watch it too and regularly upload images. Tag away. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a style guide for chemical images?

Do we have a style guide for chemical images? If so can we include a link on project page. -- thanks Quantockgoblin 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We have this. I don't know how active it is, how frequently used it is or how up-to-date (e.g., it doesn't provide for SVG graphics) but it's there. Fvasconcellos 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - added a link to the project page so that if people want to get involved then at least there is some standard to aspire to! -- Quantockgoblin 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had a style guide hiding there!! Well, nice to know. Thanks for posting it here. --HappyCamper 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Fvasconcellos 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with the Wikipedia:Requested images or Category:Image requests pages and just have a link there? There's enough duplication as it is having these pages both here and on Commons. Richard001 04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Is it worth archiving all fulfilled wishs? Most of them are just in the form of “wish – done”. IMHO archiving in the history would be sufficient. --Leyo 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to discuss this issue. I do think that it's worth archiving all fulfilled wishes. The reason is that at later time, we can still see what we all have done. Archiving in the history won't show us directly the complete "projects". What do you think? Georginho (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the following? Requests as described in my second sentence above are only archived in the history, but requests containing a discussion are moved to a regular archive. --Leyo 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer another way: requests in the form of "wish - done" are moved to a new section underneath as a list. We can call it "Completed requests". It will contain only the Commons link of the image and the Wikipedia page the image belongs. In this way, we still have a kind of archive, but one not making our project page full of "wish - done" requests. How is this? Georginho (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not an option for me. The request page (the current version, not its archives) should be as short and handy as possible. It is currently much too long and contains too many images. --Leyo 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is okay. I'll write a notice in the project page about this. But just for clearness:

• Requests in the form "wish - done" are to be deleted from the project page after they are fulfilled.
• Requests containing at least one discussion are to be kept in the project page and marked "Done" (with a green check mark) after they are fulfilled.

Do I get this right? Georginho (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the second point: The requests should be moved to an archive after a while. --Leyo 10:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also good to determine when to archive. "After a while" may be "every year", I think. Georginho (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather say a month or even a week. IMHO the main issue is that all users involved in a thread should have the chance to add a comment (reply on the previous statement) before it is being archived. --Leyo 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed true. I think it will be the best option if you check the project page regularly and decide yourself when to archive it. Georginho (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oligosaccharide nomenclature

I have edited this article to replace all the JPEGs. The last structural diagram seemed redundant, so I replaced it with an image showing only the abbreviated name of the branched oligosaccharide that’s displayed above the preceding paragraph.

I’d appreciate it if someone would check the structures and names. There was a closing bracket in the abbreviated name in the original image that seemed extraneous to me, so I didn’t reproduce it. Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to me, but I am not an expert in nomenclature. The only issue is that File:Branched oligosaccharide abbrev.svg could be replaced by wiki or TeX code. --Leyo 12:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, probably should be. But I’m not yet sufficiently familiar with either of those languages, or the relevant style standards, to code such things properly. Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about α-L-Fucp(1→3)-[α-D-Galp-(1→4)]-α-D-Glcp-(1→3)-α-D-GalpOAll ? --Leyo 08:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me … (I notice that I neglected to put the chirality symbols in SMALL CAPS in my labels—following the original too slavishly.) Do you think all the written formulae in the article should be removed from the drawings and replaced with (marked-up) text? Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea IMHO. It would also make the drawings language-neutral. --Leyo 07:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now replaced the images, setting the formulae in text, as suggested. Again another pair of eyes to look for typos or any other problems would be appreciated. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine, thank you. --Leyo 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Chemical images that should be in SVG format

I just tagged dozends of poor quality JPG structures. Help is needed to draw SVG versions of them. --Leyo 18:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)