Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2024

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene#Requested move 4 January 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mitomycin#Requested move 31 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 16:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

{{tl|ChemID}} is a CASNo lookup in the ChemIDplus database, which just appears to be PubChem. There are only a few dozen transclusions (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ChemID), all the articles being "chemical" or "drug" articles that would have pubchem ID in the infobox as standard. The ChemID is instead (from spot-checking) listed in External links, and I don't see the value of highlighting that reference (or leading readers to think it's something other than pubchem). Should we get rid of these uses, and then kill the template?

{{ping|Leyo}} who created it (but obviously anyone is welcome to contribute to discussion!). DMacks (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

: It's too bad that ChemIDplus was [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/toxnet/Accessing_ChemIDplus_Content_from_PubChem.html migrated into PubChem]. In cases, where the template is just listed in the External links section, it may just be removed. However, it is also used as a reference to specific infobox values. In Hyaluronic_acid#cite_ref-ChemIDplus_1-0 for instance, the template could be replaced by a link to https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3084049#section=Acute-Effects&fullscreen=true that contains the same information as originally the ChemIDplus entry. --Leyo 22:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

::I nuked the loose ExtLinks. DMacks (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

::All article-space fixed. DMacks (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

::: Thanks. Unfortunately, there are many more, just without that template: Special:Search/insource:chemidplus --Leyo 19:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

::::Crikey, 162 in DMacks (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

::::: I know. I removed the (relatively few) occurrences in the External links section. --Leyo 20:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:ChemID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DMacks (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This template also has a similar problem. [https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/011631.14?SID=srch-srp-011631.14 The website is moved,] and they have changed catalog numbers of chemicals. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Maltodextrin is a topic likely difficult for the general reader to grasp readily, as the term refers to two different classes of food ingredient having the same name. Would appreciate chemistry editors giving this article a critical look with revisions as needed. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, s already tried some time ago, I think including "found in taxon" in the infobox would be valuable.

For more details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Chembox#Relaunch_%22found_in_taxon%22 and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2022#Add_a_%60found_in_taxon%60_statement_from_Wikidata_in_the_chemical_infobox AdrianoRutz (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Students enrolled of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology WikiEd program are starting to publish new articles on organometallic compounds. On the plus side, we at least get [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology/Organometallics_(Spring_2024)/articles/edited? a list] these days, and they're mostly restricting themselves to distinct small molecules. On the other hand, most of the compounds appear to be wildly exotic. Project Osprey (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:I think Douglas Adams would call these mostly harmless. They are also likely to be mostly unread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

::These MIT-edited articles are now packed with minute details because that is their directive. One of the challenges to Wiki-chem, IMHO, is excess detail supported by numerous detailed references. For readers who seek an encyclopedic overview of a topic, such detail obscures the big picture. The MIT students used to add a lot of computational results, which are original research and should be removed.

::There are other sets of homework assignments coming from UBC (undergrads!) and other schools. In none of these cases does the instructor have any track record of editing on Wikipedia. So, its the blind leading the blind. Yet, Wikipedia central (where ever that is) cheers on this crap. Oh well. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

:::Can we come up with a list of articles that we could ask them to write, something(s) that are notable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::::I've worked on list articles for fungicides, insecticides and herbicides, all with many redlinks which are virtually guaranteed to be notable. Not all need individual articles, since they fall into mode-of-action sets but that could be one place to point student editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:::I took a look at some articles produced under the same instructor's courses in the past - they're packed with sections based entirely off of primary research. I'm more concerned about the work on existing articles like phosphorus mononitride. Reconrabbit 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

::::Good for some, but our last class was organometallic chemistry; and an earlier one was main-group inorganics, so can we find anything in scope that is important? I suppose it could be to expand a section in an existing article.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Chemicals! I'll save my introduction for another time, but anyways. I'm writing a draft on Cadmium sulfite, and as I write my first article regarding a chemical, cadmium sulfite is not a big deal in the world. It certainly is existent - I found a case of Cadmium being used to replace Tin foils and resulting in the creation of Cadmium sulfite.

The sulfites in general are not as widely written about as the Sulfates - just see their respective categories. Since some are more longer than others, and my article probably will not be as long, is there a guide, or a good reference, or convention for what articles regarding sulfite compounds should be like? And of course, how does mine look so far? ItzSwirlz (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:Welcome to Wikipedia-Chem Project and warm congratulations on endeavoring to write an article. I would abandon the draft on Cadmium sulfite and move on to other topics if you are determined to create articles. The writing, art, sources are substandard. I dont think that the compound is notable. Sulfites are far more obscure than sulfates, and for that reason they do not rise to the level of notability Wikipedia expects. Sorry for the negative views, but if I were to write something on video games, it would also be substandard. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:I somewhat echo Smokefoot...especially his welcome, but also his observation that this chemical does not seem to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline to merit an article. It doesn't need to be a "big deal", but it does need to have multiple reliable sources cited. The detail you found--about toxicity via an interesting route of production and exposure--is not sufficient to make the chemical itself that notable. If you can find other details, such as niche uses, sentinel detection or as a marker for something, etc. I'd happily reconsider. We do have a (not that great) article on cadmium poisoning and of course an article on cadmium and all its modern and historical uses, so maybe your new detail could find a home in one of those? DMacks (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::Sadly, a search other than the information I found contained one sentence with a claim that growing cadmium sulfite could 'permit advances in technology' (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4468151). So, I'll abandon the draft for now. Is there an easy way to find compounds that are notable but yet to have an article? ItzSwirlz (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::One approach is to read books, or read review articles in chemistry journals (This user page has examples), find any mentioned chemicals that don't have an article, and use those books/reviews as sources. Or if you have a specific chemical in mind, you can use Google Scholar (or SciFinder if you have access), search for a chemical and filter the search for only review articles. Michael7604 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::{{ping|ItzSwirlz}} Here's what puzzles me: Wouldn't one create an article about something that matters and one knows something about? Instead it seems that you just dreamt up cadmium sulfide and then hoped that someone else would supply the backbone information?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::I see many potential sources when I search "cadmium sulfite" in quotations on Google Scholar and only show review articles: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_rr=1&q=%22cadmium+sulfite%22&btnG= Search results here] Michael7604 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::Never mind, looks like most of those are about CdS (cadmium sulfide). Michael7604 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed. And most are crappy journals and they are not about the chemical. They are about some complicated app.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::More dubious stuff: Niobium(V) oxynitrate, ruthenium(III) nitrate, copper(III) oxide (now a redirect) --Smokefoot (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Notability (chemicals) is a failed proposal that is no longer accurate; we don't consider every possible chemical compound notable just because it has a CAS number. Instead the compound should be in secondary sources. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (chemicals)#Revive this proposal. I have started editing the page. Michael7604 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Across articles I've been updating formula formatting to use the new "\chem" style of formatting instead of just using plain text. Are there any issues with this? I've been doing this for a bit. ItzSwirlz (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

:I feel strongly against this. I think the style introduces inconsistency in the text that is not only entirely unnecessary, but is aesthetically very unpleasing. The {{tl|chem2}} template is much better. Marbletan (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::I also oppose the style for the reason given by Marbletan. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::should i revert my changes? ItzSwirlz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::I don't think you should revert them, since the format they are in now is much easier to convert to the chem2 template then what was previously there (with all the tags). I've started changing some of them over already. Reconrabbit 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::Awesome, if I stumble across any that I've done or text using those tags I'll move them to chem2. ItzSwirlz (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What should we say? --Smokefoot (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

:So if a solid is dissolved in a solvent, it isn't "contained" in the solvent? Reconrabbit 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

::Something I've thought about a lot: if you dissolved two different salts into water, like lithium chloride and sodium bromide, would it really make sense to say "the water contains lithium chloride and sodium bromide"? Since the salts are dissociated into {{chem2|Li+}}, {{chem2|Na+}}, {{chem2|Cl-}}, and {{chem2|Br-}}, the solution is the same as if you instead dissolved lithium bromide and sodium chloride. Instead you should say it contains lithium ions, sodium ions, chloride ions, and bromide ions. So you can't go wrong by saying the ocean contains a lot of sodium ions and chloride ions (there are also many other ions in smaller concentrations). Michael7604 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Could it also be said at that point that the water contains sodium chloride, sodium bromide, lithium chloride, and lithium bromide? (I'm starting to think this is the kind of question that comes up on Stackexchange with some frequency...) Reconrabbit 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Also think about what you would be left with if you boiled off the water. I think the resulting solid would be a salt containing a random mixture of {{chem2|Li+}}, {{chem2|Na+}}, {{chem2|Cl-}}, and {{chem2|Br-}}, maybe that could be called a mixture of LiCl, LiBr, NaCl, and NaBr (or maybe it would separate into four different crystalline domains of LiCl, LiBr, NaCl, and NaBr, dunno if this has been studied). Michael7604 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::Double salt Michael7604 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::I dont have any great answer. Evaporation of an aqueous solution made from NaCl and LiBr (no boiling required!) will give four products but their distribution will depend on solubility products and there will be a lot of doping as well. I was just wondering if editors think that we should "torture" readers with this aspect.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::The English language doesn't always have the words we need to give a brief but perfect description. I think in those cases we should focus on readability. Facts are only good where they are useful, and for most discussions on seawater it is besides the point how the salt exists, we need only accept that it is there. Detailed descriptions can be added where needed. Project Osprey (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::See sea salt. What most non-chemists think of when they speak of "salt" is indeed sodium chloride to a chemist. The fact that the sea, and hence sea salt, contains a number of other ions is largely irrelevant. Quantitatively, most of the "salt" in the sea is NaCl. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have been cleaning up some of the earlier articles I had created (which are very poor in quality), and wanted to know if the articles below would be needed to deleted or redirected due to issues. It would be nice if people like {{ping|Smokefoot}} could look at them.

• Ammonium selenide
• Actinium(III) iodide
• Manganese(II) chlorate

I also found very dubious articles that I hadn't made, so I'll list them below.

• Cobalt(II) chlorate
• Gold phosphide
• Caesium phosphide
• Manganese(V) fluoride (is this notable?)

Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 04:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

:I dont have any particular authority here except as an inorganicker, and several of these aren't worthwhile. We can deal with them on their Talk pages. As other editors are noted, it is often unclear why these articles were created. I guess that they do little harm except that they diminish the reputation of Wiki-Chem as a source of reliable info.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

:These articles are lacking :Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds which may be useful for finding these in the future. Azinamine? Reconrabbit 16:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1,2-Dichloroethene#Requested move 26 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is looking to get a WP:DYK under their belt, then may I present to you Olympiadane. It needs work but it could be gotten ready in time for the Paris Olympics Project Osprey (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the status of the discussion on MOS:MAINISOTOPE? It got archived without any box closing it. In {{diff||1230532100}} I assumed the discussion was inconclusive. 184.147.229.55 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As many know, C6-C10 perfluorinated carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids are in the news. They are "everywhere chemicals". One can be sure that these articles are consulted often. Here is the hierarchy of that set of articles (people are welcome to edit this list).

• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 158 kbyte (241 refs)
• Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids 7.6
• Perfluoropropionic acid 4.8
• Perfluorobutanoic acid 5.6
• Perfluorooctanoic acid 129
• Perfluorononanoic acid 18
• Ammonium perfluorononanoate 3.5
• Perfluorodecanoic acid 25
• FRD-903 5.7 (a branched PFAS)

• Perfluorosulfonic acids 4.6
• Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid 2
• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 9
• Nonaflate 1 (perfluorobutanesulfonate)
• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 19
• Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 54
• Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride 16
• Perfluoro(4-ethylcyclohexane)sulfonic acid 3

These articles cover semi-complicated chemistry plus extensive health claims plus regulatory issues (often too US-focused, it seems) plus a dash of scare talk. A core issue is that PFAS might be everywhere, but in very low concentrations, and toxicity vs concentration correlations are challenging.

One also can imagine that many of these articles are an accretion of years of editing with no chopping. Maybe somehow we should try to shunt readers to PFAS, the master and make the others just simple discussions of the basic chem of that compound (kinda straightforward). My point is that PFAS would benefit from some serious editing. To some extent the article is overwhelmed with references, which might detract. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

: Definitely a topic worthy of improvement, but it's a big job. Even the main PFAS article isn't in great shape (to my eyes at least) - for a page about chemicals there's little discussion of the chemistry: how it's made, or what it goes into, or why. The use of PFAS as a processing aid in blown film extrusion isn't mentioned at all, despite that often being a food contact material. [https://wikipedia.cheminfo.org/ Structure searching] shows that we have 637 pages with a -CF₂- group, 532 with -CF₃. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey (talk • contribs)

: While I agree that some of these articles would merit improvements including shortening and better refs (e.g. Perfluorodecanoic acid), I strongly oppose the proposal. While PFASs share some common properties, such as the persistence of the perfluoroalkyl moiety, the universe of PFASs spans from gases to polymers, from surfactants to plant protection products and pharmaceuticals. They are also very different in terms of regulatory, health and environmental aspects. Would you also propose a similar strategy for alkanes, alcohols or PAHs?

: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances can provide an overview also on regulatory, health or environmental aspects, but substance-specific information need to be kept in the individual articles.

: BTW: Here and here you propose to "proposed to be stripped of most regulatory, health, environmental aspects". However, several of the listed chemicals (e.g. Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid, Perfluoropropionic acid, ) do contain no or little such information. --Leyo 23:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::Okay, I was thinking of a process aimed at helping readers by unifying info into a reliable source. My impression is that the main public concerns for "everywhere chemicals" are not about gases or polymers. My impression also is that the persistence and regulatory issues mainly pertain to C8-ish carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids. But have it your way, dude. Status quo.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Solomonfromfinland}} We chemists call deuterated chloroform CDCl3. So do the journals we publish in German, British, US, Canadian. Just saying. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:I reverted the edits. Even under a legalistic reading of the Red Book, it is clearly stated that D and T for deuterium and tritium "may be" used. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

B/W structural formulas are hardly visible in the dark mode, e.g. in Propane. Is this issue only with me? 162.23.30.48 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

: No, it's everywhere. I can't see a simple site wide solution, other than switching back to light mode. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:PropaneFull.png

File:PropaneFull.png

::"class=skin-invert-image" could help => test using dark mode 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:::It looks like some infobox images with transparent background get automatic white background but others do not. In propane, the skeletal is fine but the other three are not. In that infobox, it's a difference of SVG (handled reasonably: skeletal) vs PNG (bad result: explicit, ball&stick, vdW). But it seems neither specific to chembox nor generally differential for these file-formats. At glucose, some PNG with transparent-bg in other article sections look good and others bad. Caveat: I'm using ?withgadget=dark-mode to test based on the gadget using a non-darkmode browser, not the 'real' dark-mode. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The issue might be resolved by adding "class=skin-invert-image" to Template:Chembox. 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi all; I've been looking into the possibility of writing an article for potassium hypobromite, in an attempt to develop the coverage of salts containing bromine oxyanions, (in this case hypobromite), as more of these seem to have been studied besides sodium. I came across this source, Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds, [https://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Alkaline_Earth_Compo.html?id=yZ786vEild0C], which seemed as if it could possibly help in writing about other salts, namely for calcium hypobromite among possibly others in the future. This would not be the only source used, as there'd naturally be others, but I ask mainly: is this source reliable?

I ask because this source was brought up during deletion discussions at WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium chlorate and WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium sulfite. I have no interest in writing about beryllium compounds fwiw, and these deletions were sound. The Encyclopedia of Alkaline Earth Compounds correctly identifies that "No article on beryllium sulfite can be found in scientific literature". However, {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} identified an issue with its coverage of "beryllium chlorate", which it referred to as a chlorite, and discusses it as a hydroxy compound. So I wanted to seek clarification about how useful it would be as a source. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:I consider "Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds" as unreliable. Over the years I have seen dubious content or completely incorrect statements from it used as references here. Since it claims to be a textbook, it should be based on other references, even if they are not stated within. So check if they exist, particularly in German (Hypobromit). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

::de.wp seems to be lacking in the development of :de:Hypobromit. For the set of compounds I've been looking at, I've been able to find sources beyond just Ropp's Encyclopedia: [https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses/1971/] and others for potassium, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004040391102185X] and others for calcium. I was just seeing whether this encyclopedia should be used for any referencing purposes, which I believe your answer is to avoid this one, which I shall. Is there anything redeemable from it or is it all caput? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I question whether many hypobromites (or in fact many other bromine oxyanions) would meet our notability criteria, meaning that you could find many quality first-world references, much less authoritative reviews. If you are looking for some project, I suspect that some topics could be suggested.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Most/nearly all are not practical for articles, as the set is highly unstable. There are some which have been the subject of quality sources, which is where my focus will be specifically. From the information I've found, 4 hypobromites and 2 bromites seem to be feasible for articles. (Non-exhaustive, but I only looked at potassium, calcium, strontium, and barium, de:Bariumbromit being one). My main query here was whether or not to make note of Ropp in the refs, and I'm now seeing that this ref should not be included anywhere. It seems to be scrubbed across all of Wikipedia: page history shows the ref deleted from articles to combat citogenesis such as {{dif||1176985613}}, so I'll avoid as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::It would still be useful to hear about notability. The example de:Bariumbromit is thin. Unstable and impractical compounds that are lightly cited = a theme that might not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, not to mention the efforts of someone capable of contributing to more compelling projects. Wikichemistry has a work list: Portal:Chemistry/Things you can do.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::On the note of other projects, I've also been interested in contributing towards some of the requested articles. Lithium ozonide looks particularly interesting, especially with :Category:Ozonides having a light number of articles, so I may do that and tetramethylammonium ozonide while I'm on the topic, also from the requested list. On the chemicals-side of WP I've been doing a lot of wikilinking related compounds, filling a redlink if I see it often, or if its the only redlink on a page (barium bromite applies, on bromous acid's article).

::::::{{re|Smokefoot}} The worklist is fairly open-ended and I don't think I'd be able to do much in the realm of needing an expert, merge/split proposals, etc. I can try some of the suggested copyediting, as that seems more my speed (raising the quality of articles from "poor" to "decent"). I enjoy writing and editing articles on binary & ternary compounds, in an attempt to have consistent coverage over a broad set of similar compound articles, so if there's anything in that realm I might also be interested in those types of tasks. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This redirect should be deleted, because there is no information about musk ambrette [https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=83-66-9] in the redirect target. 162.23.30.19 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

:IP editor: As a [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=musk+ambrette Simple Google search] shows, musk ambrette is a plant-based substitute for animal musk in fragrances. Thus it is a valid search term for the Wikipedia article about the musk odor, as distinct from all the other articles which mention musk and are listed at Musk (disambiguation). It would therefore be better, IMO, to add some comment (with sources) to the article than to delete the redirect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

::The best option would be to write an article about musk ambrette. 162.23.30.19 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

:::So go ahead. At first, it might just be a section within the existing target for the redirect, since the material is a plant-based substitute for the same odor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

::Musk ambrette appears to be a synthetic nitro musk, so I've added a mention of musk ambrette to the article synthetic musk and changed the target of Musk ambrette to Synthetic musk#Nitro musks. Marbletan (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure exactly why I am doing this chore, but I went through the participants list. I removed those users from the list who have been inactive for several years. I also set up an emeritus list to preserve the names of our fellow contributors. The two lists should be mutually exclusive, but there is some chaos especially in emeritus list. Other editors are welcome to dive it. Of course we have some users who are not on any list, even some notable ones like V8rik, Itub, and ProjectOsprey and others. I am unsure if we should add their names without their consent.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

:For my part, even when I joined back in 2012 it was apparent that this list was unmaintained, with plenty of editors on it having been inactive for years. Consequently, I never bothered signing it. I've no objected to being included - hard to argue that I don't spend time here.

:In this day and age you might expect such things to be automated. I'm sure that websites with similar page-ranking pay more attention to their content creators. Reports bot used to track our active editors, up until about 2 years ago. I do not know why it stopped. Such a tool would be useful for identifying new editors and/or trouble makers. Project Osprey (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

::Harej stated that‎ WikiProject Directory apparently defunct on 30 November 2022‎. You could ask Harej or The Earwig about it if that list is useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Mephedrone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I found [https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/JRC109279_LVOC_Bref.pdf this] on my travels and thought it might be a good reference to share. It's an account of how a range of compounds with a production above 20 kt/yr are made. Open-access, looks authoritative. Project Osprey (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:Some comments: great find by Project Osprey, thank ye gods for Europe (and damn UK for chickening out), and etc. Etc: a quick check shows that the document is pretty good at the chemistry, heavy, heavy emphasis on environmental & energy balance. Beautifully open access. Slight worries: authors of this doc are who? No PhD's, much less credentials. I guess the authors are aggregators of info in some sense. Some of the info provided is imperfect (e.g. Rh phosphines are not used for acetic acid by Monsanto process because MeI would gobble up PR3). I worry a little that safety-environmental-medical info might overwhelm our chem-info core mission. But again, open access source for info, hurrah!--Smokefoot (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::According to the document most of the information was provided by industry, although it's obviously passed through many sets of hands on the way. As a result, it doesn't have references in the normal way. It's a tertiary source, so we could cite it directly if desired? The document has DOI and ISBN numbers, but annoyingly they don't resolve automatically with our cite-tool. It was made for the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB), hence the safety focus. Several compounds (i.e. styrene) have their own chapters, where all the commercial routes are explained in detail and compared with one another. You don't often see things presented in that depth. At 650 pages there is more detail here than we need, but that's not a bad starting point. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Zinc oxide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Reconrabbit 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone here has access to SciFinder to check whether the following substances have a CAS RN?

• CDD-2807
• Lolamicin
• Astatine bromide
• Sodium astatide
• Radium azide
• Neptunium(IV) phosphide

162.23.30.53 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I checked PubChem, which is a good source for those like me who don't have direct SciFinder access. It has [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/168894634#section=Depositor-Supplied-Synonyms lolamicin] as CAS 2930690-12-1 but none of the others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I added the CAS numbers for all but CDD-2807 which doesn't currently have an assigned CAS number. Marbletan (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a new draft at Draft:Azaborine, it seems to me, as a non-chemist, that the first reference in the draft is a review article, so would count as establishing wikipedia notability for the class. What do people in the project think? Newystats (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:It appears to meet the threshold. The same names reoccur fairly often in the references (Liu, S. Y. is in 11 out of 29, 38%) but this might just reflect the small size of the azaborine research community. Practically the entire content appeared in a single edit, which was also User:Gmvalt's first edit - that screams 'copy and paste from a PhD thesis' to me. I can't be too critical, as that's how I started. The topic is highly esoteric, so it's liable to sit there for years without changing - but we have a lot of that sort of stuff. Ensuring that it doesn't end up as an orphan might be tricky. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::The lead has two instances of "unique" and one of "unprecedented", suggesting writing that fails WP:NPOV but the notability is not in doubt given the long history and the reliable references. There are multiple shortcomings in the formatting, e.g. use of bolding, the use of journal abbreviations, and the way that the doi have been linked but all that can be fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::There might be good content inside that draft, but to me the article is too detailed and non-encyclopedic. No secondary references. It is the homework of some grad student striving to satisfy their instructor vs satisfying Wikipedia. It would be helpful if the instructor and students knew just how much work is required to repair their contribtuions. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::Hi. Thank you for mentioning me. I did write this as part of a course in graduate school, but I have had an interest in this topic for several years since I first came across the research. I've brought this subject up to several industry chemists and they all thought it was very interesting as well. I've found very few secondary sources, but there are multiple reviews ( think I only cited one or two). I can add those review details and add more to contextualize each of the sections. I also need to add more about the uses and functions. Gmvalt (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{ping| Gmvalt}} The question is whether you are trying to show off (we assume not) or trying to help the mission of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not want granular summary of all factoids and references. For that kind of writing, some scientific review journal is more appropriate! We want an overview. If a primary ref is covered by a review, then cite the darned review and omit the primary ref (usually). Other suggestions:

1. do not number the figures or compounds. The article will change with time (kinda the point of Wikipedia), and numbering systems quickly become obsolete or even a hindrance.
2. minimize or avoid words in graphics (which are otherwise good), so that these figures could be used by other language Wikis. Try to put the words in the captions.
3. minimize the shout-outs to various research groups. People are reading for content, not for the PI's.
4. "recent" and similar words become stale quickly. Writing for Wikipedia differs from technical writing. You might try to communicate some of this correspondence back to the mothership.
5. Finally and most importantly, thank you for your contribution. Overly detailed, imperfectly curated content is far, far better than nothing.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
6. :Hello. That all makes sense. I guess I was writing about what I thought would be the most interesting and useful to someone.
7. :I don't have any affiliation to the groups mentioned, I just thought that touching on the progession of these compounds and relating it back to literature would be helpful for the reader.
8. :I need to go through and read this again with fresh eyes. After that, I think I can tone done the technicality of it.
9. :To your first point, I dont think there is really anything flashy about doing this. I did it just because I know my past self would have had fun being shown a page about this subject. However, I read nearly exclusively technical texts now, so maybe I that has crept into my writing.
10. :Thank you for your hard work and feedback. I know y'all have several pages talking about how to make Wikipedia pages, but maybe having one geared towards writing articles about technical topics like this would make your life easier. There are multiple classes in US grad programs that have Wikipedia articles as projects. Having dos and don'ts that are more specific to these types of articles might help. Although these might cater to people with atleast a degree in chemistry, I think that is still a pretty broad audience that benefits. 192.54.222.154 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::As to reading any instructions, I am pretty sure you know how to construct or edit here. The main issue is your understanding of scope. I mean, here you have semi-expert chemists wondering if your draft is even salvageable because it is so specialized. One intermediary approach would be to write a few sentences and stick them as a section into our article on boratabenzene or on borabenzene, which ever one is more relevant.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone here has access to SciFinder to check whether the following substances have a CAS RN?

• CDD-2807
• Lolamicin
• Astatine bromide
• Sodium astatide
• Radium azide
• Neptunium(IV) phosphide

162.23.30.53 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I checked PubChem, which is a good source for those like me who don't have direct SciFinder access. It has [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/168894634#section=Depositor-Supplied-Synonyms lolamicin] as CAS 2930690-12-1 but none of the others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I added the CAS numbers for all but CDD-2807 which doesn't currently have an assigned CAS number. Marbletan (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a new draft at Draft:Azaborine, it seems to me, as a non-chemist, that the first reference in the draft is a review article, so would count as establishing wikipedia notability for the class. What do people in the project think? Newystats (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:It appears to meet the threshold. The same names reoccur fairly often in the references (Liu, S. Y. is in 11 out of 29, 38%) but this might just reflect the small size of the azaborine research community. Practically the entire content appeared in a single edit, which was also User:Gmvalt's first edit - that screams 'copy and paste from a PhD thesis' to me. I can't be too critical, as that's how I started. The topic is highly esoteric, so it's liable to sit there for years without changing - but we have a lot of that sort of stuff. Ensuring that it doesn't end up as an orphan might be tricky. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::The lead has two instances of "unique" and one of "unprecedented", suggesting writing that fails WP:NPOV but the notability is not in doubt given the long history and the reliable references. There are multiple shortcomings in the formatting, e.g. use of bolding, the use of journal abbreviations, and the way that the doi have been linked but all that can be fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::There might be good content inside that draft, but to me the article is too detailed and non-encyclopedic. No secondary references. It is the homework of some grad student striving to satisfy their instructor vs satisfying Wikipedia. It would be helpful if the instructor and students knew just how much work is required to repair their contribtuions. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::Hi. Thank you for mentioning me. I did write this as part of a course in graduate school, but I have had an interest in this topic for several years since I first came across the research. I've brought this subject up to several industry chemists and they all thought it was very interesting as well. I've found very few secondary sources, but there are multiple reviews ( think I only cited one or two). I can add those review details and add more to contextualize each of the sections. I also need to add more about the uses and functions. Gmvalt (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{ping| Gmvalt}} The question is whether you are trying to show off (we assume not) or trying to help the mission of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not want granular summary of all factoids and references. For that kind of writing, some scientific review journal is more appropriate! We want an overview. If a primary ref is covered by a review, then cite the darned review and omit the primary ref (usually). Other suggestions:

1. do not number the figures or compounds. The article will change with time (kinda the point of Wikipedia), and numbering systems quickly become obsolete or even a hindrance.
2. minimize or avoid words in graphics (which are otherwise good), so that these figures could be used by other language Wikis. Try to put the words in the captions.
3. minimize the shout-outs to various research groups. People are reading for content, not for the PI's.
4. "recent" and similar words become stale quickly. Writing for Wikipedia differs from technical writing. You might try to communicate some of this correspondence back to the mothership.
5. Finally and most importantly, thank you for your contribution. Overly detailed, imperfectly curated content is far, far better than nothing.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
6. :Hello. That all makes sense. I guess I was writing about what I thought would be the most interesting and useful to someone.
7. :I don't have any affiliation to the groups mentioned, I just thought that touching on the progession of these compounds and relating it back to literature would be helpful for the reader.
8. :I need to go through and read this again with fresh eyes. After that, I think I can tone done the technicality of it.
9. :To your first point, I dont think there is really anything flashy about doing this. I did it just because I know my past self would have had fun being shown a page about this subject. However, I read nearly exclusively technical texts now, so maybe I that has crept into my writing.
10. :Thank you for your hard work and feedback. I know y'all have several pages talking about how to make Wikipedia pages, but maybe having one geared towards writing articles about technical topics like this would make your life easier. There are multiple classes in US grad programs that have Wikipedia articles as projects. Having dos and don'ts that are more specific to these types of articles might help. Although these might cater to people with atleast a degree in chemistry, I think that is still a pretty broad audience that benefits. 192.54.222.154 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::As to reading any instructions, I am pretty sure you know how to construct or edit here. The main issue is your understanding of scope. I mean, here you have semi-expert chemists wondering if your draft is even salvageable because it is so specialized. One intermediary approach would be to write a few sentences and stick them as a section into our article on boratabenzene or on borabenzene, which ever one is more relevant.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Esters § I don't like this template. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I have worked on creating cyclohexadecane, cyclopentadecane, and patch up cyclotetradecane only to notice that the notability of the latter is questioned. Now, I am thinking we could lump together large cycloalkanes into one page since their chemical personalities are so similar. My preliminary suggestion is that we do cycloC13 to C16 in one article.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I support a unified article for the large cycloalkanes, which then links out to individual ones' articles that have enough to say to merit their own articles. As a model, we have higher alkane. But our cycloalkane article is not very large and already does cover some unifying themes of the larger rings, such as strain (section could be expanded) and has a list up through C10 (could be expanded to for example 20 easily). Is there enough to say about "large cycloalkanes" to merit more than a section in the cycloalkanes article? DMacks (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::I removed 11-year old notability tag from cyclotetradecane as there are many publications on this substance. Quite a few on its structure. It appears to be produced by some plants and is found in coal tar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Could you please add these interesting details to the article? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::I extended Cycloalkane#Table of cycloalkanes to C20, pulling the key physical properties from each bluelinked chemical's infobox. Pretty suspicious that three have the same density. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Only 2 now. I've updated the values using ones from ECHA REACH registrations (where available). The EU do a good job with this because they collect fresh physical data on compounds when they register them - rather than reaching for ancient and much recycled literature values. Those remaining values of 0.790 look at bit suspect. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks for tracking down the refs! I updated the two compounds' articles to sync with those new values you found. DMacks (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::What's the point of listing a boiling point at arbitrary vacuum? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Distillation. Project Osprey (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Sure, but in a table you can't compare b. p. at one pressure with b. p. at another 5.178.188.143 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I read the quesion as a concern that some of the bp do not have pressure listed, and if the pressure isn't known, the temperature is not meaningful. In response, it's usually assumed that pressure is atmospheric unless otherwise stated. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I think a similar table for cycloalkenes would be useful! 5.178.188.143 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I recently proposed moving Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines. I initiated the request as a speedy rename as I thought the justification was decent and it would be uncontroversial. However, the move request was opposed and moved to full discussion. It's been about a month since and there's been no discussion. So I'm requesting feedback here. The reasoning for the move and discussion can be found at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Opposed speedy move request. Thanks! – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_24#Category:Substituted_amphetamines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)