Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
NA	This non-article page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Shortcut: WT:Chem

The discussion here concerns all parts of the Chemicals WikiProject, including the infoboxes, lists, standards, includes/excludes, tools, contributors, etc etc etc. Feel free to add your comments to any section here, or start a new topic. Older and closed discussions have been archived (2005, 2006, 2007). Topics not specifically related to the Chemicals WikiProject would be better served at other wikipages.

Contents 1 Status statistics 2 New page of important chiral auxiliary 3 Chlorine trifluoride 4 Template:NatOrganicBox 4.1 Subdiscussion - chembox new 5 Diamondina 6 New pages for Jan-Feb 7 New DEFAULTSORT magic word 8 Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006 9 References in chembox 10 Chembox new 11 New pages 12 Request for assistance 13 Additional info requested for Strontium Compounds 14 A small note about using variables in the template names 15 Uranium peer review 16 TeX/MathML 17 Joining 18 even more data? 19 Uranium is now a featured 20 New pages 21 Rust 22 A bunch of compounds tagged for deletion 23 Terpene/terpenoid merge? 24 Borane 25 Cheminfo boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight 26 Styling State Subscripts 27 Chemical compound stubs 28 Guidelines for defining a chemical reaction 29 Request

[edit] Status statistics

WPChem worklist articles Importance None Total Quality FA 6 6 A 21 21 GA B 154 154 Start 175 175 Stub 26 26 Assessed 382 382 Unassessed 0 0 Total 382 382

The worklist shows the actual work to be done to achieve the goals of the Chemicals wikiproject. The choice of important compounds articles to work on has been finalized in an earlier stage of the wikiproject (around mid 2005), and no further articles are added, although we remain open for strong suggestions on this talkpage. The work these days focuses on improving the articles, from Chem Stub all the way to Chem A-Class articles. The table below shows that progress.

Worklist historical status
	2005								2006								2007
Grade	Jun	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Oct	Mar	Apr
FA	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	6	6
A-Class	27	30	29	30	25	24	26	25	25	25	25	28	28	28	28	28	27	21
B-Class	71	72	70	74	80	84	85	86	87	94	97	98	101	115	121	130	148	154
Start	112	103	106	111	115	131	167	179	178	178	187	194	199	199	197	190	174	175
Stub	97	98	106	122	120	130	94	82	82	77	65	54	46	32	32	29	27	26
unclassified	76	74	59	45	44	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	-	-
Total	385	379	372	384	386	371	375	375	375	378	378	378	378	378	382	381	382	382
percentage ≥Chem Start	55.1	54.6	55.6	56.5	57.5	65.0	74.9	78.1	78.1	79.6	82.8	86.0	87.8	91.5	91.6	92.3	92.9	93.1
weighted progress, %	42.2	42.7	43.8	45.2	45.2	50.4	53.1	54.0	54.1	55.0	56.0	57.0	57.8	59.7	60.0	60.8	62.2	61.9

The percentage ≥ Chem Start was indicative of the initial effort. Now that we are progressing to more advanced progress, the weighted progress indicator is used, calculated as (Unclass*0 + Stub*1 + Start*2 + B-Class*3 + A-Class*4 + FA*4) / (Articles*4). We are aiming for A-Class, and humbly not for FA.

Chemicals articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 2 1 3 6 A 6 8 6 1 21 GA 1 1 4 6 B 9 55 86 1 13 164 Start 35 146 9 45 235 Stub 3 39 12 488 542 Assessed 18 103 280 23 550 974 Unassessed 0 1 0 1 1618 1620 Total 18 104 280 24 2168 2594

Statistics for all chemicals, as registered by the bot, also see complete list

[edit] New page of important chiral auxiliary

Prolinol comes as a stub and this should change!--Stone 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine trifluoride

I can neither check the two statments in the article: It was first prepared in 1912 by the electrolysis of molten NaCl/HF but is now generally made by reacting fluorine gas with 3% aqueous sodium hypochlorite solution The Hollemann Wiberg states discovery 1930 by Ruff synthesis from the elements. Has there anybody a better source? --Stone 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide link for yours? -- Boris 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hollemann Wiberg is a standart iorganic chemistry book and in there is a table of all interhalogenes and it says Ruff 1930. The Ruff paper cited in the article itself does not give any previous synthesis. The Russian Review of Shishkov and that of Booth also states Ruff es discoverer. I will change that part of the article after the weekend.--Stone 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NatOrganicBox

I have made some changes to this template. Which are explained (in short) [here] (i work most of the time on this project ). As this template is used by articles that are maintained by this project as well, I need your opinion on what needs to be improved. -- Boris 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the infobox, but I'm concerned that using it causes some inconsistency. In my opinion, it would be best if all chemical articles had infoboxes that are consitent in appearance, content, etc. Which is why we have the chembox templates. I don't mean to be confrontational, but why should some chemical articles, such as coniine, get NatOrganicBox, and other chemical articles such as 2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidine get a LabOrganicBox, while most of the other chemical articles get regular chemboxes - all three of these infobox styles have different appearances. What value is there in having three separate infoboxes? --Ed (Edgar181) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I too disagree with the use of this box, and the laborganic box, the chembox simple, etc. I think chembox new is a good way to combine the pharma and explosive natures of various compounds into an article. But I think there are some outstanding issues the last time I checked. --Rifleman 82 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 4 big groups of organic chemicals that have different values for us and have different origin.

1. those that are natural to our bodies - aminoacids, sugars, lipids, etc. They have their standart chemical properties (molecular weight, melting point, PubChem number, etc) but they also have a complex biochemical pathways that metabolize them and a complex system that regulated these pathways.
2. the natural drugs they have their own value for the organism (plants, microorganisms, etc) that produces them but for us humans their value is as drugs, or insecticides, etc - they have the standart properties, plus the metabolic ones, but they also have drug specific ones - half life, legal status, interactions with other drugs, etc - these are vitamins, natural opioids, antibiotics, etc.
3. the synthetic drugs - these also have a drug value for us but only humans can synthesize them in lab - examples would be all modified antibiotics that have no equivalent in nature. this group have all the properties the natural drugs have except they don't have complex biochemical pathways associated with their synthesis.
4. and the last group is of those that have no essential value for our bodies, nor can't be used as drugs, their value is as "lab" or purelly industrial chemicals - hexane, benzene, etc.

Now this is all organic talk here if we are to include the inorganics we can get 2 more groups, at least.
I would love to get rid of all the different infoboxes and have only one infobox that has the same consistent layot for all the groups (with multiple IFs for the specific properties) but applies different coloring - the same way the taxobox is designed. Would that be chembox_new or another one, it doesn't matter, but it has got to be one and before the number of the articles about chemicals hits the 5 digits (~3700 now).
About LabOrganicBox and NatOrganicBox. Relax. There is no need to sound the fire alarm as they can be easily deleted, i just wanted to see how this is going to look.
P.S. Coniine should be considered as natural drug, so it gets the light blue style not the natural one that i have wronlgy tested, although i don't know if anyone has used it as such yet. -- Boris 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is instructive for WE-chem communicate that chemicals are chemicals, regardless of whether they are biosynthetic, factory-produced, or found in a meteorite. Otherwise, I fear, we encourage the dangerous concept that natural chemical are distinct and endowed with special powers. The triumphs and pervasiveness of chemical biology reinforces this view - it's (it = biology, materials, etc) all just chemistry. Thus, I recommend that we stick to a fairly uniform Chembox for virtually all chemicals.--Smokefoot 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not but they have "special powers". And i don't think that "chemical biology", "biochemistry", "molecular biology" or whatever you want to call it is pervesive. What happens with a compound when it becomes a cosntituent of an organism (temporarily or permanently), and its role in there, cannot be fully explain by chemistry alone. The biology world is a three dimentional one and what is needed most of the time, for the effects of the chemicals to occur, is that they bind (no covalent bonds formed, or metabolized to speak) to a biological surface which is a part of a complex regulatory network and the studying of the latter one and how it is affected by the chemical, are outside of the scope of your beloved classic chemistry and here is where bilogy and its "abominations" - the chemical biology, etc. - come to play (i'm being sarcastic here). I was looking for a cooperation between our two projects Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals (i participate in both but happen to edit only the "special" sorry i can't help it, this is how far my competence will let me go) - chembox_new and drugbox are slightly different and they reflect that special importance, and i don't see anyone using chembox_new in drug articles, so we gotta find a good solution here. Plus i'm tired of seeing the inconsistnacy all over the place - there are tons of articles that have been around for years and still have the same old grey, or other color, tables; they don't even use templates - Ethylene glycol. Then judjing by the topic started earlier and by my own observations it is here in this project the reason that some articles (300 or so) get special treatment while the rest kinda "screw them". So are we gonna discuss how to solve this or what? -- Boris 04:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say the solution should not be using another infobox, but to make use of the existing ones. So, is ethanol a natural organic compound, bearing in mind its biosynthesis? Or is it an industrial solvent? Or is it considered a drug, a hypnotic? Same goes for acetic acid which is sometimes used as a reaction solvent. Or as a precursor to metal acetates. Naturally occurring compounds are not necessarily "special" either - strychnine is natural and usually lethal. I personally feel that such distinctions shouldn't be drawn. My approach to those gray boxes and old boxes have been to replace them with the existing chembox, while waiting for chembox new to take over. Fortunately Beetstra should be able able to AWB to the chembox new as and when required them quite easily. --Rifleman 82 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol and acetic acid will be group 1, as our bodies have the enzymes to synthesize them, so their articles and drugboxes will have sections explaining their biological role as well. If the acetic acid derivatives have no analogues in the "bio" world, they would be group 4 chemicals. Strychnine is a naturally occuring alkaloid - Strychnos nux vomica has a bunch of enzymes for its synthesis, aparently it has some role for the plant, most probably protective - and is used as pesticide, so it belongs to group 2. The synthetic analogs of strychnine, designed to act stronger on roddents and to be less harmfull for other animals (say scavenging birds), go in group 3. See, the categorisation process is very simple.
P.S. For group 4 this color - #82D9CA might be more appropriate. -- Boris 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I indeed once started programming AWB to do a transfer to {{chembox new}}. That would be a great improvement, and I am willing to do that run (though the total work is going to take time). I am not too sure about colouring of the boxes, though. It is going to get us into disputes, grouping is far from strict, and there will always be borderline things (one could program a parameter into the chemobx, that is defining its group, giving every group an own color, and the box has a 'standard' color when the parameter is empty, if any dispute about grouping is raised on the talkpage, empty the tag). Though I think it would be better to color the subboxes, and keep the chembox itself in one color. Mw == Mw, whatever the chemical, and that is in the top, if there is drug-info, than that box should be a sub-item in the chembox, and that box could have it's own color.

A problem is, there are many fields in some boxes that are not yet implemented in the chembox new, some work has to be done on that first. I would also suggest to make empty subboxes in the chembox invisible, now you see the header, but there is no data. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The colours do look nice, but I agree that there is no useful purpose to be served by introducing more chemboxes - this would just lead to more inconsistencies. It wouldn't help clear up articles like ethylene glycol - indeed the backlog would just get longer. Thanks for letting us know about this. Walkerma 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subdiscussion - chembox new

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox (chembox new has been updated, I'd like add their 2c/2p to it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamondina

Can WPChemicals verify the existence of this? I wasn't especially sure. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any results in the general databases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The synonym given in the article, beta-methyl-phenethylamine, is certainly a real compound with CAS# 582-22-9. There are hundreds of references to it in Chemical Abstracts. Diamondina may be slang for it, but is not listed by Chem Abst as a synonym. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I found results for the b-m-p name but not for Diamondina. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the page to beta-methyl-phenethylamine, is surely a better name (but maybe IUPAC-name is even better?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pages for Jan-Feb

Propanoic anhydride Dipropanoylmorphine Isonicotinamide These pages need a look.--Stone 09:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another new page: Oxamide --Stone 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another that needs a look and redirects, especially from a p-chemist: Ruthenium tris(bipyridine) chloride--Smokefoot 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another few Pivalamide, Carbothioamide, Monocalcium aluminate, Lauryl methyl gluceth-10 hydroxypropyl dimonium chloride, (sorry these three are a little oftopic) Abul Hussam, Sono arsenic filter, Mayo-Lewis equation, Synthesis Reaction--Stone 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way I think dimonium should be diamonium?--Stone 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Magnesium citrate is another new one!--Stone 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New DEFAULTSORT magic word

I just wanted to let everyone know about the new "magic word" DEFAULTSORT, if you haven't already heard about it. Recently I've gone through most of the chemical articles that start with a prefix (such as a number or "alpha-" or "N-", etc.) and changed the categories so that they sort based on the first letter after the prefix. This required manually adding a sort key to each category. Now that this job is mostly done, I've found out there is an easier way (d'oh!). If you add {{DEFAULTSORT|sort key}} before the categories, each category will automatically use that sort key. For an example of its use, see the edit I just made to 1,4,7-Trithiacyclononane. For more details about how to use it, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006

Hi, if you take a look at this category, you will see it has a huge backlog of chemical components. These articles are mostly stubs that weren't expanded. What do you think of them? Should we try to merge some, or if someone has a sufficient background and wants to expand them to show in which area they can be important... I hope someone will be able to take a look at it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of us are working on it. Merging is not really possible, they are all individual compounds, all notable (although they do not state that at the moment, hence the {{importance}} tag. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in chembox

I'm copying this conversation over from Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox in order to bring it to a wider audience:

I'd like to request an additional field for chembox new. When I get the majority of data that I use to fill a chemical infobox from a single source, I like to put a reference at the top of the box. See o-Phenylenediamine for an example. Can a simple field for adding a ref at the top like this be added? Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was easy, but Cite.php does not work inside a template. Any other place where I can add that? Maybe a plain line in the footer? (stating 'source' or something like that?) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind of solved. Not the nicest way .. it's not clear where you go to with that external link .. but o-Phenylenediamine has now that functionality .. the parameter is 'Reference', to be added in the header of {{chembox new}}. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm happy with the way it turned out (not your fault, of course.) I'm copying this conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals so others can give input. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask members of this project what you think is the best way to handle references for data in a chembox. Lately, I've been putting a reference next to the title (see a historical version of o-Phenylenediamine). Is this a proper thing to do? It works well with substituted infoboxes, but unfortunately, as Dirk has noted above, <ref> tags don't work in a transcluded template, so there doesn't appear to be a clean solution to be used with {{chembox new}} (see current version of o-Phenylenediamine). Any ideas, suggestions, or comments? --Ed (Edgar181) 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In a way, the data in the chemboxes gets referenced by the CASNo (link to eMolecules), PubChem (link to PubChem), and other identifiers. And the data is not unique to a single reference, it can be obtained from many sources. Is there need for an extra reference field? In principle that could fit in the list with the these identifiers (see {{chembox Identifiers}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it's too ambiguous to put a ref for the whole infobox. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(copy from my talkpage) I was just curious if there were other non-substituted infoboxes that used references, and I found that {{taxobox}} has field for a reference (used in Yellow-shouldered Blackbird). I don't know enough about the inner workings of chembox new to know if this has any relevance or not though. Just thought you might be interested. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! I have solved the problem. You can now add, in the top-level of the {{chembox new}} a parameter 'Reference' (I am not making it a standard reference). If you give that parameter the value <ref name=example>www.example.org</ref>, all works out OK. So all formatting haas to be done in that parameter, and then it works. See o-Phenylenediamine! Thanks, I've learned something new! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of this reference, but there is a way, so there is no problem in having the support available in the {{chembox new}}. For this reason, I have programmed an extra field 'Reference', but that field has to be added by hand, a copy of the chembox from the example on {{chembox new}}, nor substing {{chembox subst}} gives this field as a standard. A wide range of other fields is already available, but since I don't want to encourage overuse of all the fields (create a datapage, chembox new automagically finds the data page, and shows an extra box), you will have to search for it, and see how to enable them. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still one problem in the o-Phenylenediamine, the external link off the CAS# - we saw the same problem we had with the old chembox - look at printing it to see! We had a strict policy of not allowing external links in chemboxes for that reason (CAS#, PubChem, etc). Is the new reference field a way to solve this? I don't want to barge into something where I'm unsure - but we should get rid of that external link. Remember - most of us editors only look at our articles online, but many people reading the article will want to print it. Could someone more knowledgable look at that? Thanks for all the work on this, Dirk and others, Walkerma 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can editors check o-Phenylenediamine to verify that this problem is now fixed. If my solution has really worked, we can modify the other chembox fields which use external links (only Template:Chembox CASNo modified for the moment). Physchim62 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution, I did not know this trick. There are some other fields that use external links, they are all, AFAIK, in {{Chembox Identifiers}}) (some other templates still are able to call out to the same identifiers, but I have defined that as deprecated).

Is this the only reason why we did not want external links? I know they are biased (but all to non-commercial sites), people might want them to link to other external sites (I could easily program support for that, though, using non-standard fields). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "print bug" was the main reason why external links were excluded from the chembox, yes. There had also been problems with whole sets of links going dead when an external database changed its structure, but this is solved much more easily with a transcluded template like {{chembox new}}. I can't remember the question of bias being discussed as such, although I have never been keen on links to MSDS from the chembox for that kind of a reason. Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the proper databases removes the necessity of a direct link to an MSDS, should I hide that field in the {{Chembox Hazards}}? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chembox new

I have totally reprogrammed {{chembox new}}, and I think it is a good and full replacement of the old chembox. Chembox new has the same functions as {{chembox}}, and more. Some features are:

• completely transcluded, if we want to change the format, colours, we change the template, and all documents transcluding this template will show the new format;
• simple input, in the document you see 'parameter = ', and you just give it a value;
• modular approach: is the compound an explosive? Copy in the explosive module. For other fields new modules can be created, though most are available;
• empty fields are not shown;
• empty sections are not shown;
• capability of handling multiple images;
• when no image is provided, autocategorisation for the image request;
• advanced fields for molecular formula, boiling/melting points,
• when a "pagename (data page) exists, it will show an appropriate section.
• Identifiers link into a number of online databases, to make it easier to find more information on chemicals (they also print properly, now).

The standard chembox new can be created by typing {{chembox subst}} and pressing save. This gives a short list of the most common fields. Larger lists can be found in {{chembox new}}. When you want to add data for which the field is not supplied, just add the field in the appropriate section, and it will show in the chembox (when the field is known by the section, at least). Do not subst chembox new, it will result in a not-working, unintelligeble gibberish of code.

The chembox new can handle many, many fields (and more can easily be added if they are needed). All can be found via {{chembox new}}, or in its sections, which are linked from that document. The large number of possible fields gives the risk that the table becomes very long. I think we should all keep an eye on these, and when the table on a certain document gets to long, move data to a data page. When that datapage is properly named ("pagename (data page)"), chembox new will show a new section with links into the datapage.

One of the examples using the advanced features and showing some other features is isobutane, have a look at the melting point/boiling point, the molecular formula, let your mousepointer hover over the numbers in the NFPA-diamond.

For more information, see {{chembox new}}. I have started writing a bit of a manual there, but I think that still needs some expansion (and I think I can use some help with that, for me most of it is too obvious already and I might explain things too complicated, please feel free to rewrite).

I need some testing to see if everything really works with formatting, fields showing up properly etc. although I think most of the functions have been tested (I am sorry if I just demolished your fresh document by replacing an old chembox by a new chembox, but these are the documents I see in my watchlist). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, you're a hero! That's an amazing piece of work, thank you very much for all your work! Walkerma 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've a script for AWB to convert the old chemboxes to the new. Perhaps you can share them, and we can spread the load? --Rifleman 82 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed started with an AWB script for that, but it is not free of errors, and is far from complete (the main problem is that the old boxes that are around are all different, so it is not a simple find and replace, anymore). I'll have a look at that later. Cheers!

A bit of discussion, do we want to replace all boxes by the new chembox new? I have already felt some 'resistance' from some people who use the {{drugbox}} for the about 1500 drugs in the Wikipedia. I indeed believe that having one chembox throughout makes life easier in all fields, but I also see that having a drugbox instead of a chembox increases recognisability (type-colouring in the chembox may proof very difficult, I don't think this system allows that). AFAIK all fields of the drugbox are also abailable in the chembox new, so that should not be a problem.

If we want to stop using the old {{chembox}} or other boxes, can we replace the contents of the old chemboxes that get substed with the contents of e.g. {{chembox subst}} (which creates an empty chembox new in a document)? That would save us the work of later having to migrate it to the new chembox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We should not replace drugboxes with chemboxes - we had this discussion a year or two back with Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs. We agreed that with things like paracetamol the principal reason for the article is because of its use as a drug (not its chemical properties), so the drug box is more applicable. If there are any borderline cases, we could discuss them with WP:Drugs on a case-by-case basis. Walkerma 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is clear. I will make AWB ignore drugboxes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pages

Lotaustralin, Cobalt nitrate, Magnesium benzoate, Calcium chlorate and Émile Henriot--Stone 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ]]

Ammonium cerium(IV) sulfate, Timeline of Discoveries in Chemistry, Chemesthesis and Polytype--Stone 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Stone. I rated them, either for WP:Chem (the chemical compounds) or for WP:Chemistry (the others). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but these are not mine, but new ones I found! --Stone 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NONOate, Neurine, Carthamin some new ones.--Stone 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Atomic carbon--Stone 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bromoanisole, Barium chlorate, 3,3'-Diiodothyronine, Lead(IV) sulfide, N-butylamine, Disodium hydrogen phosphate --Stone 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

I would very much appreciate if someone from this WikiProject could look in on the Juice Plus article, to try and head off some edit wars. There is considerable dispute about how technical the article should be, and whether or not it should do such things as listing all of the ingredients on the product label, and all of the potential side effects. For example, there is currently a question at Talk:Juice Plus about whether or not "potential harm to an unborn fetus" is a reasonable thing to include in the Wikipedia article, considering that such language is included on a university survey's consent form. I'm not one of the main article editors, but have been trying to help out as a third party. However, I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia standards in terms of chemicals, drugs, or nutritional supplements, so I'd really like some more experienced editors to pop in. Thanks in advance for any assistance, Elonka 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info requested for Strontium Compounds

I know a good deal about the uses of Strontium Carbonate, Sulfate, and Nitrate because I work with them frequently, but I don't many useful sources. The links are as follows.

Strontium carbonate Strontium sulfate Strontium nitrate

So far the carbonate article has made the most progress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoyalSoldier (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Well done, LoyalSoldier. I've classified them as Chem Start. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A small note about using variables in the template names

In Template:NFPA-chembox each template member (NFPA-F1, NFPA-F2, etc)of the NFPA-F/H/O/R families of templates is called with the help of a variable - {{{F}}}, {{{H}}}, {{{O}}}, {{{R}}} - respectively. For NFPA-F/H/R this is done with {{#if}}, while NFPA-O uses {{#switch}}. I think we should use switch for the other 3 as well so we don't send the servers on a search for a nonexistent template as it was happening here. -- Boris 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I solved it. Good point, did not think about the problem that invalid input gets parsed as well (the non-breaking spaces were necessary in an earlier version). Stupid me .. ;-) It now only listens to 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4; all other input results in a non-breaking space. Hope this solved the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be hard on yourself, you have just re-designed chembox new (Very nice!!!) so it's totally O.K. that you have missed something. -- Boris 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. There is a smiley after that comment. Thanks again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uranium peer review

The uranium article, rated with High Importance and a WP:VITAL article, is up for peer review in order to get it ready for FAC. Please leave suggestions for improvement at WP:PR#Uranium. Thanks. --mav 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TeX/MathML

The issue from here has come up again here. I checked the archive and there was support for html only; I support it too with reasons on my talk. Should we put it in the styleguide? --Rifleman 82 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Did not comment on this last time, I believe html is better, looks better, it works OK, and is easier to understand for people who are not used to mathml. IMHO, mathml should only be used when there is no clear alternative, which probably boils down to all but the simplest mathematical equations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joining

I would like to join this wikiproject. I was wondering, do I have to check with the current members first? J Hill 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just sign yourself up (or just make contributions without signing up). Welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] even more data?

I was wondering if we should add azeotrope data to liquid chemicals. This, however, would be a vast amount of information, but still useful. (for example the boiling point of a mixture of toluene and pyridine or the well-known H2O.toluene azeotrope. Difficult. Sikkema 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be reasonable to add for chemicals where this is relevant. E.g., in the hydrochloric acid article this kind of data is presented. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

• I think that if the data is worth presenting then it is worth a sentence of explanation: some azeotropes are important, but most aren't. Among the important ones, I would include "constant boiling" hydrochloric acid, and the azeotropes of ethanol with both water and benzene... Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uranium is now a featured

Gratulations! Might happen to some other article as well!--Stone 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pages

Khellin, Cromone, Sulfosalicylic acid and Bitterant need some work!--Stone

I think cromone is a misspelling and should be merged into chromone. I'll merge them in a few days if nobody disagrees. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rust

There are some disparaging remarks on the talk page for rust about the quality of that article - particularly the chemical processes that cause rusting. It seems to be an article frequently referred to by schoolchildren, so it would be good if an expert could sort it out. I've added the expert template to the article, but thought it was important enough to draw your attention here, too. My interest? I just came across the page while vandal-fighting. Hope this is OK. --Smalljim 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure is ok. I gave the article a cleanup copy-edit focussing on the indeed subquality chemistry in the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
• Thanks Wim. It's certainly simpler now. --Smalljim 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bunch of compounds tagged for deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 7 March 2007 and Special:Contributions/Diez2. --NE2 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noted this also. I have contested that many times (they are tagged with {{importance}}, not with {{notability}}, but the deletionists still will delete them on sight. I am giving up on them, I have contested prods, deletions, and other (re)tagging often enough. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Parker007 removed all the remaining prods. Also, if anyone is interested, there is also an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesium perchlorate. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I took one article, nitrosyl fluoride, and added as much relevant information as I could. Hopefully its notability is now apparent. Why are people deletionists? I don't understand their logic!

Ben 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I contested the AfD. Re:Ben: I have been trying to explain wikipedia:WikiProject Notability the difference between {{importance}} and {{notability}} (reiterated that at the AfD), but in the deletionist eyes these two tags are the same, and everything that has an importance tag since June 2006 has to go (beware, July 2006 is next!). The result is now, that the prod ánd the importance tags have been removed, which now results in these articles staying unnoticed, instead of being in a backlog for addition of importance (which may in the end result in importance actually being added ...). So be it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we create a special importance tag for WP:CHEM that deletionists wouldn't know or care about?

Ben 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I suggested once, and I still am in favour of that. Deletionists don't get that they should leave that assesment to an appropriate wikiproject, so that would be a good solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have for now reinstated the importance tags, the articles still don't state any importance, so that tag is in place (sorry for the backlog). Hope to hear more on the plan of our own importance/notability-tags. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• the {{chemicals}} template has the optional importance with ratings as Top, High, Mid and Low. Read on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Assessment page the origin of all articles ratings on Wikipedia: the May 2005 (!) version has been the original to all those now widely used assessments. The importance thing has indeed only been in use since mid 2006, created originally for being able to choose articles for WP on CD (later WP:1). And I'm afraid it gets used for (against) deletionist more and more. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Terpene/terpenoid merge?

I would like to suggest a merge of the articles terpene and terpenoid. I don't think either topic can be discussed without significant overlap with the other. In many contexts they are even considered synonymous (or at least the terms are used interchangeably.) It doesn't make sense to me to have separate articles. That's probably the reason we have the category Category:Terpenes and terpenoids, rather than separate categories. Currently, almost the entire contents of the terpenoid article is redundant with terpene, non-mevalonate pathway, and mevalonate pathway so there isn't much value to that article as it stands. The technical distinction between the two terms (terpenoids are functionalized/modified terpenes) can be fully explained and exemplified in the joint article, perhaps better than it could be in separate articles. What do you think? --Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked a bit on some of the specific terpene articles, but not on these two general articles. I agree there is a lot of overlap. I don't have strong views on it either way, but I certainly wouldn't object to a merge, with terpene being the new home for the combined article. Seems reasonable. Walkerma 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borane

I have maybe got a bit over excited and changed the scope of this article to be about the family of boranes rather than the transient BH₃. Check it out --revert if you like and create an article boranes maybe. I have tweaked the other borane articles to put in the IUPAC names and also redefined organoboranes to apply only to BH₃ derivatives, rather than anything with a boron carbon bond. I have also rewritten boride article because it was short and needed improvement. Axiosaurus 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheminfo boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight

I noticed in the chem info boxes the listing of the "atomic mass" rather than the "atomic weight". This at first appears to be a progressive move away from the now somewhat deprecated "atomic weight"; however atomic weight has been replaced by "relative atomic mass" not "atomic mass". Atomic mass means something different I am not even aware of widespread misuse of the term atomic mass in this manner, although I could imagine it given the shorter term being the less frequently intended. As long as there isn't a long and widespread precedent of misuse and confusion I strongly suggest that we stick to using the terms according to their IUPAC definitions.

Please see the following if you are unaware of the meanings of these terms:

• The IUPAC definition of "relative atomic mass (atomic weight)"
• The IUPAC definition of "atomic mass"
• An IUPAC article in Pure and Applied Chemistry detailing the the reason for this schism and the motivations for the definitions

To summarize: "Atomic weight" was replaced by "relative atomic mass" and "atomic mass" was reserved for individual atoms or nuclides (i.e. not isotopically weighted).

Just trying to make wikipedia more accurate. --Nick Y. 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I found the more relevant place to bring this up: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements But I would encourage those that read this here to comment on it nonetheless. I just is a little irrelevant since the chem infoboxes use molar mass which is totally correct. I just didn't realize the distinction until now.--Nick Y. 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Styling State Subscripts

I am wondering how it is best to display state symbols in equations. I have seen them mostly on wikipedia as just normal text - but it is common in other places to use <sub> tags - to make them state subscripts. My preferred method is to just use <small> tags. Does anyone have a preference about this - or is it just up to the author on a case by case basis?

With <small>:

H₂O(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq)

As normal text:

H₂O(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq)

With <sub> tags

H₂O_(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺_(aq) + OH⁻_(aq)

Conrad.Irwin 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting question. It isn't in the WP:Chem styleguide (just checked), so currently it is up to editor's preferences. The subscript are IMHO wrong, so it would be with or without <small>. But there is more: sometimes all (states) are wikilinked:

H₂O(l) + NaCl(s) → Na⁺(aq) + Cl₂(g)^{Not chemically correct: just for example}

Certainly not my preference. I would go for straight in-line. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It's probably good to have a consistent style throughout chemistry articles. If we can come to a consensus, it should be incorporated into the styleguide. I prefer italics and either small or subscript, like this:

H₂O(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq)

I like the way italics sets the text apart a bit more. Wikilinking the text is nice idea too. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a template in my user space for the moment that allows the state subscripts to be put in easily and standardly. I have opted for a style that is halfway between the full size and small options that have been discussed here. Please feel free to edit it Here

NaCO₃(s) + HCl(aq) → CO₂(g) + H₂O(l) + NaCl(aq)

Conrad.Irwin 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer straight inline state symbols, along with Wim.

Ben 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My stand is per Wim and Ben. I dislike links in chemical reactions, especially those which link every single atom. Rationale is that the user expects adjacent blue letters/words in a phrase to be a single link, not individual ones. --Rifleman 82 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep life simple - I say straight inline state symbols (without wiki-links). -- Quantockgoblin 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind whether we use straight text or italics, though I think inline is better, at least. Regarding links to explain states, I usually put these in the first time they occur (only) - I don't think that's overkill. I have had often seen questions on talk pages like "What does the I mean in the name silver(I) fluoride?" Many of our readers are schoolkids, with an extremely basic understanding of chemistry, and when they first see an equation with (s) or (aq) in it they may be baffled. I usually hate wikilinks to elements, but I think a wikilink to the actual compound can be helpful. Walkerma 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As a non-chemist, I strongly support efforts to link everything in chemical equations. Link the compounds and link the state abbreviations whenever they occur, please. It's not just "schoolkids"; even smart adults from other fields don't remember all the abbreviations. Including them doesn't hurt anything, does it?

Is there a guideline for how to use templates like {{oxygen}}?

For instance, I'm trying to replace this:

• 

But there are a number of ways to format it:

• Overall reaction: 2H₂O(l) → 2H₂(g) + O₂(g)
• Overall reaction: 2H₂O(l) → 2H₂(g) + O₂(g)
• Overall reaction: 2H₂O(l) → 2H₂(g) + O₂(g)

The last is best in my opinion, but a consistent style should be decided on and recommended for use everywhere. — Omegatron 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to formatting equations, I recommend that we follow the guideliness used in professional journals, monographs, and reviews and keep the annotation only when required for some sort of thermodynamic discussion. WE-chem does not really want to deviate from standards agreed upon by the most chemical societies as expressed in their publications, right? WE is an encyclopedia, and we should resist the temptation to turn it into a textbook. Other wiki projects exist explicitly for that very admirable goal, such as the Wikibooks (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page) and Wikiuniversity (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Main_Page). Many of those interested in this formatting issue could do wonders for these important projects (and leave the equation formatting in WE-chem alone!). A practical problem with indicating the state of the components in a chemical reaction is that it imposes a constraint that complicates editing:

• first, many reactions occur in multiple solvents and multiple phases, e.g. gas-solid, gas-gas, and solid-solution.
• second, the (l), (g) thing places a burden on contributors of content, such as me, who might not know whether, say a reactant is a gas, a dissolved gas (which is no longer a gas), etc.
• third, annotating the state of reactants and products will lead to debates that will be less productive than other means of contributing to WE-chem, such as content.

Again, I invite those who are concerned about formatting of equations to consider contributing to the educational wings of WE-chem, which are needful of the help that many of the WE-Chem folks could provide.--Smokefoot 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that state information should be included in every equation. Just asking that we settle on a consistent style for when it does. — Omegatron 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical compound stubs

Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. >Radiant< 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this wikiproject is about chemicals compounds, I'd rather discuss it here. The answer to your question is to just start working on an article or group of articles of your personal interest, and be bold. It mostly is about laborious work to gather the data to make an article flesh out into a full blown article. The WP:Chem styleguide gives good guideline, while using a chemical infobox gives an easy start to data presentation. So, the only thing you need is time to do all that. Success. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

• the one article per compound does not always work, too little content. An alternative is to describe compound classes with comparisons for example xylenol (no point having 6 pages) although xylene exists but also its three isomer pages or boronic acid which intends to group together a bunch of compounds. V8rik 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see terbium(III) oxide has been put up for deletion, I have given it a quick search on the internet, which yields that it is actually used (I have described that in the keep vote). Maybe worth a look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to help with this although my chemistry knowledge is somewhat rusty. I've put a suggestion on the Chemistry COTM to add a few lines of background to those "significance-not-explained" chemistry stubs. I'm not sure how active the Chem COTM is at the moment. >Radiant< 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a strong supporter of "mergism" in regard to long-term stubs (of any sort) where it's feasible. It's likely to make more sense for the reader in a lot of cases, and it might also avoid having these articles "churned" by stub-sorters, putting them into ever-narrower stub types just to try and deal with the pile-up, which if the articles aren't seeing substantiative edits, isn't ultimately doing much good. And it's easily reversed if there is subsequent expansion to merit re-splitting. Alai 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• As the instigator of some family pages I support the principle of merging. Family pages allow for chemical trends, reactivity, structure etc to be discussed. This is as useful as the chemical compound infosheet style. After all the majority of chemical compounds while interesting one liners in a discussion have no uses commercially, and many are not well characterised so an info box could only be partially completed. I would start with merging all the stubs that just say X_mY_n is a chemical compound of X and Y. I would also question the classification of some articles as stubs (what a nasty emotive word that is!). For example zinc iodide -not a bad article, a bit short perhaps--whereas zinc nitride deserves the category IMHO - once created noone has been able to add to it significantly, although it has had 10 or more administrative interventions--the nitride article probably is a stub--it is short, accurate as far as it goes at a cursory glance - but it should be expanded e.g. nitride ion is isoelectronic with O^2-....also the so-called diamond like nitrides (III/V) GaN, InN etc etc. I think I have just talked myself into expanding this page! Axiosaurus 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I still haven't found any article about a chemical on wikipedia that is not expandable, and zinc nitride is no exception. Two minutes of searching google books show that this compound has real known and published properties and possible uses, such as in lithium batteries. [1]. --Itub 12:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to profit us little to argue that if they're in theory expansible, all is well even if they're not actually being expanded. If current amounts of material is suggestive of merging, and that amount of material has been essentially stable for several months, merging looks better and better as an option. Alai 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why. I think merging articles about different topics hurts rather than helps navigation and usability. Merging should be reserved for topics that are clearly redundant (such as synonyms or other accidental duplicates), or topics that are not notable enough to be able to have an article on their own. Notice that notability depends on the topic, not on the length of the current version of the Wikipedia article about it. --Itub 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against merging. Where would you merge the article into? Zinc nitride has no overlap with titanium nitride (the first, I would guess, used in electronics, the latter being a hard material). Most, if not all, chemical compounds are unique. IMHO, articles that do not state their importance or are stubs just have a right to be there if the subject is important. Most of these subjects have an importance, are unique compounds, but seen the huge amount of work that has to be done in this project, indeed noone comes to them. There is no reason to delete, there is no reason to merge. I am sorry, but we have a backlog, and yes, maybe that will stay like that for some time (I like the initiative to make them 'chemistry colloboration of the month). In the last months several of the articles have been expanded and the importance tag has been removed, but there are still quite some left. Now I see (again) that they go up for deletion or other drastic measures, but, as Itub and I already showed, a simple google search already gives some information, where even a non-chemist could write something. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Dirk here. Merging makes sense in principle, but the work involved in writing a properly organised combined article may be just as much as expanding the separate articles. And often I've looked at a compound and thought, "How come such an obscure compound has a page" I see later that the same compound is really important in nonlinear optics, magnetic materials, battery design, or something else outside my field. There are very few compounds on WP that truly rank as obscure (to a chemist, at least), and I'm sure a determined editor could wade through Chem Abs and write a Featured Article on even holmium(III) oxide (for which Chemexper has two pages of suppliers listed - someone is buying this!). There are clearly too many for us to be able to expand every one, we should focus on articles we consider more valuable and closer to our interests. Walkerma 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think merging of chemistry stubbed articles serves any real purpose.

It would be too much like removing sprouting weeds from a garden, and in the end if these weeds are not plucked, then they have a change to turn into a beautiful flower - ok sickening analogy over.

However, I also think that whilst some pages are short, this does not mean that they are not complete (or complete enough). For example methyl is not a long article, but it says enough. I know the methyl article is not marked as stub but it is certainly not the definitive statement about all things methyl either! Indeed it could be made longer without much trouble ... but not for the sake of it.

I'm strongly against merging article just for the sake of pruning the number of stubs - deletion at least would be cleaner and does not make false distinctions or tenuous links

Also as said by Walkerma, the effort made in merging could be better used to expand stubbed-articles. -- Quantockgoblin 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on the above, I'm sure there are lots of short articles which are complete enough that could be dis-listed as stubs. -- Quantockgoblin 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A while back, a proposal of mine to merge stubs on long-chain alkanes was defeated here. Apart from this specific case (and a very few similar ones), I cannot see the benefits from stub-merging. Some articles about chemicals are always going to be short: when I did Radium chloride in 2005, I went back to Gmelin to write the longest encyclopedic article I could (10k) about this best known of radium compounds... Where would you merge it and why? Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold, and started to retag the articles in the Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance by replacing the template {{importance}} with a new template {{chemical-importance}}. Although I do understand that wikipedians want to clear the backlog in the category Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance, the only solution I actually see happening is that they get put up for merge, retagged, prodded, or AfDed (most of the time by people outside of the chemical field). While many of these compounds are important, they only don't state that (otherwise they would be tagged with {{notability}}).

I do firmly believe that this is not a good solution, but, I am sorry to say, I just don't feel like arguing anymore with people who are not involved in chemistry about these articles ('they have been in the category for too long, they are apparently not important'), resulting in some chemists having to salvage them and being forced to work on them (they are being worked on, there have been some that have been expanded to show importance, and which now have been detagged). We all are volunteers, and I have seen this happening now too often (sorry, Radiant, that you are the catalyst of this, but I guess you have been for some of these articles at least the fifth contributor trying to clear the backlog in this or similar ways, and I am happy with you trying to find solutions here, I am sorry that I partially ignore that).

This does mean, that we now have an own category with a backlog, which probably does not get noticed by non-chemist wikipedians (who would also be capable of actually improving articles in the backlog).

I hope you all forgive me my somewhat cynical and annoyed tone in this, have a nice day (and have a look at some of the articles in Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006. Regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good call, Dirk. Thanks for setting this up. Walkerma 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This may have been said before - if an article has not been rated for over year (perhaps 2 years) - isn't there an arguement that that compound is not notable and show be mark low or perhaps "presumed-low". Clealry if a later editor wishes to change this rating it can be! -- Quantockgoblin 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Could be done with a quick bot-run. If we haven't got round to changing its status it is of low importance, up to editors to rectify the inevitable mistakes. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a follow up to the above - and if an article is notable it is likely that the article will be in someone’s watch list and be flagged up at that point! -- Quantockgoblin 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for defining a chemical reaction

Are there any guidelines for waht to include when you are adding a chemical reaction. Several of mine have been highlighted as not having enough information (I have asked the editor who flagged them as to what he thought (here)- but I think he is a schoolboy and so probably has no idea of what they should include). I have been including a picture of the overall reaction and a brief description, as well as selected journal references, which I assumed would be sufficient.
Many Thanks
Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some specific examples of articles? --Itub 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the logs, I found Bechamp reaction, Bechamp Reduction, and Baudisch reaction. I think I understand why they were tagged. They only have a reaction scheme and references. While this is a great start, it is also customary to include a short paragraph to put the topic in context and link to related articles. Always assume that the reader might get there via Special:Random and should be able to figure out what the article is about. An example for the Bechamp reaction could be (I'm making this up because I don't really know it):

In organic synthesis, the Bechamp reaction is used for producing arsonic acids from activated aromatic rings such as aniline. It was first described by A. J. Bechamp in 1863. The reaction is an electrophilic aromatic substitution, using arsenic acid as a reactant.

Also, all the information currently in the article is basically copied from http://www.chempensoftware.com. Some would object to that due to copyright concerns. However, if you expand the article based on this information it could stand on its own as an original article. Hope this helps. --Itub 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the tagging is done by computer-savvy children - it's initially annoying but I got over it. I view the tagging as part of their process of learning WE so that when they grow up and learn content they will be able to more meaningfully contribute. You will notice that the most ardent taggers rarely contribute content, except to topics like Britaney Spears. --Smokefoot 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• your current articles have a copyright problem. Try to provide an alternative to chempensoftware not copy it. For inspiration take any article started by our friend User:~K for example Algar-Flynn-Oyamada reaction or Claisen rearrangement. For image quality and guidelines try Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing V8rik 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the copyright issue here. I drew the reactions out myself and so they are all my own work. They were not copied from anywhere. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not a lawyer, but... the possible problem IMO is not with the figure, which is re-drawn (you can't copyright a reaction, but just a particular drawing of it), but with copying the exact list of references together with the same reaction scheme. Again, you obviously can't copyright a reference, but maybe a particular selection of them. Now that you expanded the article and added other references, there should be no problem IMO. It is often said that "you can't copyright a fact", but when exactly does a selection of facts become an original work? I have no idea. :) One other thing: I suspect that the scheme may be wrong (even in the original); I would expect the formula of the acid to be H3AsO4, rather than H2AsO4. --Itub 09:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi there WP:CHEM members. I have just drawn a structure for pentosan polysulfate as requested on that article's Talk page, and would greatly appreciate it if someone could check it for accuracy. It's a bit out of my league, and I wasn't able to find a really authoritative source for the structure, so here is my version: If there are any inaccuracies, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)