Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
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 Older and closed discussions have been archived (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). Topics not specifically related to the Chemicals WikiProject would be better served at other wikipages.

Contents

[edit] Status statistics

WPChem worklist
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 7 7
A 16 16
B 180 180
Start 153 153
Stub 26 26
Assessed 382 382
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 2008
 
Grade		 Jun Jul Oct Jan Mar May Jul Oct Mar Apr Jun Oct Dec Feb May
FA 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 7 7 7
A-Class 27 29 24 25 25 28 28 28 27 21 23 19 18 18 17
B-Class 71 70 84 87 97 101 121 130 148 154 153 156 157 158 179
Start 112 106 131 178 187 199 197 190 174 175 174 174 181 180 150
Stub 97 106 130 82 65 46 32 29 27 26 26 27 19 19 29
unclassified 76 59 nil nil nil nil nil nil - - - - - - -
Total 385 372 371 375 378 378 382 381 382 382 382 382 382 382 382
percentage
≥Chem Start		 55.1 55.6 65.0 78.1 82.8 87.8 91.6 92.3 92.9 93.1 93.1 92.9 95.0 95.0 92.4
weighted
progress, %		 42.2 43.8 50.4 54.1 56.0 57.8 60.0 60.8 62.2 61.9 62.1 61.7 62.3 62.4 63.0

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
Featured article FA 2 2 4 8
A 4 4 8 16
B 23 109 175 43 350
Start 6 91 474 245 816
Stub 1 37 405 713 511 1667
Assessed 36 243 1066 1001 511 2857
Unassessed 1 1999 2000
Total 36 243 1067 1001 2510 4857

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

[edit] Orbitals in italics?

The standard way of typographically representing orbital types seems to be in italics, i.e. 1s2. Is this actually the standard? Many examples in WP use non-italicised letters. So, I guess my questions are a) does WP:Chem have a standard on it, and b) is it important enough? I've edited a couple of articles whilst browsing but if it's not that important I won't edit this in future. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The ACS Style Guide (used by the journals of the American Chemical Society) uses lowercase roman letters for atomic orbitals such as s, p, d, and f. I don't know if other publishers use italics. I generally try follow the ACS style on Wikipedia unless there is explicit consensus to do otherwise. --Itub (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be in upright type and not italic, although I haven't yet found an external authority for that. Originally, the letters were abbreviations for spectroscopical terms (sharp, principal, diffuse, fine), and such abbreviations are usually printed in upright type. AFAIK, there are no specific guidelines on WP, and I have seen italic type used (I've used it myself, on occasions). I don't think it's a problem in general articles, but I note that atomic orbital uses both upright and italic type, something which should probably be changed for that article at least! Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
IUPAC agrees with both Itub and I (and, incidentally, the ACS): International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (1993). Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry (2nd Edn). Oxford: Blackwell Science. ISBN 0-632-03583-8. p. 83. Electronic version. I don't have access to the definitive version of the third edition (2007), but I do have a review copy (2005) and the relevant paragraph is identical. Physchim62 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy either way. It'd be nice if we had a standard way of doing it on WP (and so it seems that it should be non-italicised), how do we go about setting it in stone? Freestyle-69 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Am. Chem. Soc. does not italicize electron configuration, e.g., d6 complexes but does so in 16e complex. Point groups are italicized, C2v. Symbols for variables appear to be always italicized: E (for energy), T1 (NMR), t1/2, dFe-Fe = 2.51 Å, pKa, ΔH, ΔS, ΔG. But we should check with the Chemical Soc. and the Euro area policies before deciding.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to draft guidelines based on the IUPAC Green Book if people tell me where the problems are. In general, physical quantities are in italics, whereas mathematical symbols are in upright type, although there are exceptions—at least, cases which could be seen as exceptions if you don't follow the strict definitions as to what is "physical" and what is "mathematical"! "e" for an electron should be (according to IUPAC, IUPAP and the ISO) in upright type if referring to the particle ("16e-complex") but in italics if referring to the elementary charge, a distinction which is rarely relevant in chemistry. I don't think this is a difference between Europe and North America, but rather between different editors (of both and other regions) who happen to prefer one form over the other. It doesn't seem important for the scientific content (nor for the organization) of WP, but it would be nice if each individual article could be self-consistent! Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers everyone. For the moment I'll just aim at consistency within articles. Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box width

I found this via Special:Random - I think the issue should be self-explanatory. How can this be dealt with on a systematic basis? --Random832 (contribs) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On most browsers, that page looks just fine. However, on some browsers long names and/or SMILES in the infobox can cause the width to be too big. An easy solution is to add spaces in the middle of the data causing the problem. I have fixed it for that article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free drawing software?

My apologies if this question has been asked before. Is there a structure/reaction drawing program a la ChemDraw that's available for free online and that works on Macs? I'm on an iBook G4 running OS 10.5.2, and I haven't been able to find anything. I'm not looking for anything fancy, I'd just like to be able to add some structures and perhaps rxn schemes to some articles. Yilloslime (t) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a free version of MDL ISIS/Draw for the Mac. (If you can't find it via Google, let me know, and I'll look for it.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Try ACD/ChemSketch I believe it is free for non-comercial use, but check out the licience. Works on Windows fine - Quantockgoblin (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas. Unfortunately, I've downloaded both and neither of them seem to work on my 'puter. The ACD program appears to be Windows only—at any rate, my computer has no idea what to do with a .exe file. MDL does have a Mac version, but it hasn't been updated since Feb 2001, so again, my computer just looks at the file dumbfounded. You'd think that apple.com would have some basic drawing program available for free here, but, alas, no. Any other ideas? Yilloslime (t) 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
On a limb here, but I believe Linux/Unix software can be made to work on a Mac? Not that I know from personal experience. Check Chemtool.[1]. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If the source code it available, it can usually be compiled on Mac. Sometimes it "just works", sometimes it takes somewhere between a tweak and an infinite amount of hacking to get it to compile and run properly. Fink and MacPorts both have extensive collections of science programs (last I knew, fink had a wider selection, but some were older versions). DMacks (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propylene or propene

I made what I thought would be an uncontroversial move of propene to propylene, only to have it promptly reverted.

What do you chemists out there think is the more appropriate title? It seems strange to have ethylene but propene. A quick Googling returns 315,000 for propene and 4,510,000 for propylene. I know the Google test is crude, but at 14 times as many hits for propylene, it's fairly clear.

Ben (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point comparing this to Talk:Ethylene#Title and name Ben. It seems that because this isn't something that is cut and dried, there just needs to be a consensus on the topic. I'm for propylene personally. Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Another way to go is to use the IUPAC name. However, often IUPAC names are not the most commonly used and too much of a mouthfull! Apart from raising this as an option, I'm not sure I've really contributed! That said, I think that as long as people can find the page under either name, maybe we shouldn't worry too much about what exactly it is called ~ instead let’s find some juicy pages to upgrade! Maybe others think otherwise? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Chemistry has a long, rich, and fascinating history, as reflected by the various non-IUPAC (common, trivial, obsolete, trade, etc.) names for older chemicals. If we were to always use IUPAC names, we'd certainly be more consistent, but we'd also remove wikipedia a step or two from this history. Wikipedia articles would be unnecessarily confusing (who says "methanoic acid" instead of "formic acid") and unnecessarily bland. So my vote is for "propylene"—it's the name most chemists use, it's harder to confuse with "propane", it's the root of "polypropylene," etc. Yilloslime (t) 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be propene, this name is very common and widely used (including chemists) in addition to being systematic and IUPAC-recommended (in contrast to methanoic acid). Propylene sounds very, very outdated, it is a name that mostly survives in trivial names of some reaction products of the compound. Сасусlе 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make too much difference to me, as long as we have consistent nomenclature for ethene/ethylene, propene/propylene, butene/butylene, isobutene/isobutylene, polypropene/polypropylene, etc. This issue has gone on for quite awhile (including above), without any clear resolution. Perhaps we can reach a consensus and put it into the chemistry manual of style. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Along the same lines, User:AssegaiAli has also recently moved methyl butyrate to "methyl butanoate". I have reverted the move (at least for now), because all the related articles are currently named as "butyrates". I have also invited him here to discuss these renamings. In my opinion, it is important to be consistent, so let's see if we can reach an agreement as a community, then apply that conesensus throughout the chemistry articles. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This sort of thing really is a nightmare to deal with, and always will be, and consistency is always going to be a challenge. (Thank God for redirects!) Acetate is easy, and IUPAC supports it but butyrate is less so because many students - our main readership - will only have heard the word butanoate. A Google comparison still strongly favours butyrate (caveat below). But where does the cutoff come? Valerate still wins hands down on Google, yet, many newly minted chem graduates would (I suspect) still be unfamiliar with the word. What about caprylate? Even many practising chemists rarely use the word caprylate, yet it still wins out on Google. (This illustrates the problem with "consistency") Many of these traditional words spread out into the popular world in food additives, plasticisers, etc, and once there they will take many decades to be displaced (long after chemists have stopped using the word). I even had a boss who referred to muriatic acid, but I don't think many chemists know that name now (do YOU know what it is? I bet Wim does!).
Another is regional differences, and also differences between industrial vs academic/research vs academic/teaching chemists. There can be differences too between (say) inorganic chemists and organic chemists. (Physical chemists, meanwhile, only use one chemical). I have found in the US, for example, that people are more likely to talk about isopropyl alcohol, but in the UK isopropanol was more common in the labs I worked in (no one called it propan-2-ol!). This leads to problems where editor 1 says, "no one calls it lead dioxide any more" and editor 2 says "of course they do - who ever heard of lead(IV) oxide?"!
So we have to find a balance between traditional names and systematic names. If we always stuck with popularity (Google, etc) we would probably still be writing articles called flammable air instead of oxygen (OK, I exaggerate) - but certainly caprylate instead of octanoate (a bad thing IMHO). Yet at the same time we don't want to follow every IUPAC rule to the letter. I have always taken the view that if a compound has a well used systematic name (such as ethyl pentanoate instead of ethyl valerate), then we should go with the more systematic name, even if it is a little less popular on a Google search. However, if the systematic name is rarely used, we should stick with the usual name everyone will recognise. The problems come with (1) the borderline cases, such as iron(II) sulfate) vs ferrous sulfate, and (2) with cases where there are many names in use such as (tributyltin, tri-n-butyltin hydride (the name I hear most) or tributylstannane. As we revamp the chemistry style guide, we need to resolve this issue.
As for the propylene/propene issue, this is yet again a borderline case. As a teacher, I'd favour propene, but I wouldn't shed many tears if it was switched - I know that propylene is still popular in many industrial settings. Also, note that much of the higher Google rank for propylene (5 million vs 1 million) comes from pages about propylene oxide, propylene glycol and propylene carbonate. Looking at the tenth Google page, I noted that only two out of the ten hits were about CH3CH=CH2. (As Bullitt Darlington says, "Caveat Googletor"!) If you adjust for that ratio right across the 5 million, you would find that both propene and propylene would come out about 1 million each, and so I would go with 'propene. Walkerma (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to be strictly consistent as the articles should reflect generally recognised preferences. In the case of ethene (which I admit I prefer), the article is best entitled ethylene because this name is universally recognised by experts and laymen and ethene is definitely only an lesser alternative. In the case of the other alkenes, this is less clear however, as the trivial names are falling out of use, largely because they are much more familiar to experts than they are to the layman. In their case I think the systematic name is the best one for the article. In extension, I feel that chemicals that well-known outside chemists' circles should be called by their most familiar names, while those that most people know very little about are more safely, IMHO, described by their systematic names. Overall, I think consistency is important, but communicating knowledge effectively is more so.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A mostly agree with everything that's been said above, and most with especially with the acknowledgment that prop(yl)ene is a tough one, since both names are used about equally. I'm new here, so forgive me this idea has already been floated and shot down, but what about deferring to widely recognized source for naming issues, like say, The Merck Index.? If the latest issue of the Index is listing n-C7H15COOH under "caprylic acid" rather than "octanoic acid", than so should we, etc.

This is not as clear as with ethylene; I think the longer the alkene the more esoteric the trivial name becomes, and this is a borderline case. I personally tend to call them ethylene and propene (they just seem easier to pronounce that way ;-). But most people have only heard of propylene as the monomer of polypropylene, and "polypropene" is almost never used, at least in my part of town. Therefore I think either name is fine, although I lean slightly toward propylene. Perhaps its a matter of choosing between the "academic" and the "industrial" name. Since this is a major industrial chemical, perhaps more weight should be given to the industrial (but I will never yield to muriatic acid! :-) --Itub (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

2-Phenethyl propionate, 3-Methylpyridine, Dimethyl fumarate and 1-Phenylethylamine--Stone (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two different types of arrows in 3-Methylpyridine. Which ones should be used? 84.75.152.187 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preferred IUPAC names

At some point (it is already more than two years behind schedule), IUPAC will be publishing the updated version of the "Blue Book", its recommendations on organic nomenclature. The major change is the introduction of "Preferred IUPAC Names" or "PINs": these will give a unique (preferred) name for an organic structure, although other names will continue to be recommended for 'general' nomenclature. For example, "ethanoic acid" will not become 'wrong', but "acetic acid" will be the preferred name. The draft recommendations are available here: note that they only apply to organic compounds, although there is a IUPAC project to extend the system to inorganic compounds [2], expect completion sometime during the current century!

I think it would be useful to include these names explicitly in the chemboxes, although it is obviously a large task. Given the general attention being given to chemical articles during the CASRN verification, it does not seem an impossible job. Should we start now, or should we wait for the recommendations to be formally published? Physchim62 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Physchim, don't let some procrastination by IUPAC hold you back to edit all 5000 chemicals articles ;-). But browsing the hefty doc a bit, I don't see indications that it'll all be different now, so I don't think it will have a big effect. E.g., the article is already called acetic acid. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

I think that once the Validation Set is ready for deposition that it would be worth having someone with enough energy and passion taking a look at the IUPAC names and checking for consistency with IUPAC PNs. I can provide that SDF file to someone to check at that time. It is NOT yet ready I'm afraid...too many other distractions on my side at present.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New pages

[edit] Manganese oxide

There are two pages Manganese oxide and Manganese Oxide, the former is a disambig page and seems OK but the latter is a redirect to Manganese dioxide. I think the second one should be deleted. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, so I re-pointed Manganese Oxide → Manganese oxide. Will have to look through all the pages that link to either of those to see if their links should be adjusted to be specific manganese oxide chemical pages. DMacks (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ThanksAxiosaurus (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PNG to SVG

Hi all, anyone know of a simple way to convert from .png to .svg? Chemdraws saved as .png don't seem to come out too well on WP and [this] page indicates that they should be .svg? Happy May Day :) Freestyle-69 (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, we've had discussions about using imagemaps (e.g., clicking on any structure in a reaction goes to that chemical's page) .I don't think WP imagemaps are compatible with svg because there is no "native" image size to establish the coordinates. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they are (try clicking on the enzyme or compound names). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, not sure why it didn't work when I tried it a while ago, but I didn't try that hard--thanks for correcting me! DMacks (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone else interested, there is some info here from User:Slashme, kudos to him. Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzamil

New article. Anybody has anything to add? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article misses the CAS number. 84.75.152.187 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment of the Start-Class group in the worklist

Hi all, just to let you know: I have re-assessed all articles in the Stub-Class group (no surprises), and also in the Start-Class group. Some thirty articles have been re-classified, approx half down to Stub and half up to B-Class. I hope that the overall progress score isn't affected too much. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

  • The weighted progress jumped up to 63.0%, but the work on the stubs regressed back to 92.4%. May I kindly suggest attention to these Stub articles? Some need just a little TLC (mostly an infusion of some chemistry) to reach an acceptable Start classification. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] WP:Chem in C&E News

I just heard about this. The CAS/Wikipedia collaboration was mentioned in C&E News recently. If you are an ACS member you can see this here; if not, you can look at the March 17, 2008 paper issue, pages 42-43, if your library has it. Walkerma (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's nice that C&EN accepts Wikipedia as a source of chemical information. However, let us not forget that CAS still pretends that a user cannot find a CAS Registry Number(R) on its database and then add it to the relevant Wikipedia article. Such an attitude is illegal and antiscientific and, if CAS continues in this way, it will find itself in court one of these days. Wikipedia should have no part in giving cheap publicity to an organization whose values are so obviously opposed to the freedom of knowledge. Physchim62 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a short announcement, only on page 43. A bit of windowdressing, as pointed out by PC. Nothing I got worked up about. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] New articles

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason, why you don't have a special page where the new articles are listed? In de-WP we have that (see here) and I prefer it to having new articles posted on talk pages. --Leyo 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a bot that categorizes new pages. New chemistry articles are automatically reported at User:AlexNewArtBot/ChemistrySearchResult. The bot is of course not perfect, and others get reported here too, which seems to work fine for bringing these articles to the attention of chemists. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did not know (or not remember) that bot generated page. --Leyo 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, we do have a special page, where new articles and many other interesting subjects are brought to our attention: here. What's wrong with that? Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Category:Drug pages needing a structure drawing, Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing

Can an admin please change the following in {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox new}} (both protected and I don't have sufficient user rights) in order to avoid non-article pages to be categorised:

  • <includeonly>[[Category:Drug pages needing a structure drawing]]</includeonly>

to

  • {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Drug pages needing a structure drawing]] }}

and

  • [[Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing]]

to

  • {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing]] }}

Thanks. --Leyo 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Great idea, by the way :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzalkonium chloride & Chembox

Just to double check - we're not having Chemboxes for mixtures such as Raney Nickel. What about mixtures such as in this article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For a mixture such as this, which has useful applications as a mixture, and for which there is plenty of chembox-appropriate data specific to the mixture, I don't see why we shouldn't have a chembox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having a chembox when sufficient appropriate data can be given for a mixture is not a problem: you can apply the chembox template wherever this is useful (if relevant only partially). The wikiproject WP:Chem is about articles on chemicals substances, not about mixtures. Raney nickel is in the gray area, as is this Benzalkonium chloride. If I would be pure, I'd ditch them both, but oh-well, why not? So, they're both still in. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] New articles - inorganics

The following are newish but not mentioned here before as far as I can see: Tin(II) sulfide, Manganese(II) sulfide, Bismuth(III) sulfide, Chromium(III) nitride, Mercury(I) iodide, Nickel(II) bromide, Bismuth trifluoride, Arsenic pentafluoride, Arsenic trifluoride.
--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I rated the ones that weren't rated yet, but didn't find anything particularly interesting, so they're all at Low importance and Stub or Start class. There isn't a rule that an article has to be listed here for being a formal chemicals article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Actually, you can find all new chemicals articles here. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
Thanks - new to me - and a very useful page --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some kind of bromic acid

Hi. I was looking for the article on some kind of bromic acid with the formula O=Br-OH. As I don't know its name exactly, I could not find it. Can anyone help? 84.75.152.187 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In parallel with ClOx– naming, BrO2– would be "bromite", so HBrO2 would be "bromous acid". DMacks (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Could be. Unluckily, there is no article on bromous acid and not even a link to that substance (Special:WhatLinksHere/Bromous acid). 84.75.152.187 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is not that the name "bromous acid" is incorrect, but rather that wikipedia just doesn't have an article on the chemical since it's not a very notable compound.Yilloslime (t) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, bromous acid is unstable and decomposes to bromine and bromic acid. However, some of its salts are stable and bromous acid is supposed to be an intermediate in some interesting oscillating reactions, so it may be notable enough. --Itub (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see, there is a structural formula of that substance on Commons. --Leyo 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is used in the German article[3]. If someone could translate it, that would be a good start. --Itub (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the linguistically challenged between us, I have created it as suggested by Itub. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. I added the structural formula. 84.75.152.187 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chloroformic acid

The talk page of Chloroformic acid includes aurgent call for help with the article! So lets one or two things, for example that the stuff is related to phosgene --Stone (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzenediazonium chloride

Benzenediazonium chloride has a large portion of the diazonium compound as content, and the name of the compound should be Phenyldiazonium chloride? --Stone (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] calcium(I) chloride

Does anyone have any information on this compound? It looks very deletable, (I haven't flagged it). It was reported in the 50's "Über das Calciummonochlorid, Ehrlich and Gentsch, Naturwissenschaften, (1953), doi:10.1007/BF00628837", but didn't find its way into Wells 3d edition 1963. Recently it has been stated that the compound does not exist, (Gerd Meyer, Dieter Naumann, Lars Wesemann 2007 Inorganic Chemistry in Focus III Wiley-VCH ISBN 3527609091). This is a bit like ditellurium decafluoride the difference being that Te2F10 probably seemed more believable at the time and hence was reported in textbooks.--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that CaCl cannot be synthesized as a stable compound that you can put in a jar, and that the article is entirely wrong. But nevertheless, there are a couple hundred papers on CaCl. After a cursory inspection, I think most of them are gas phase experiments or calculations. Some have to do with astrophysics or astrochemistry, and at least one has to do with pyrotechnics (apparently you can find CaCl in a flame). So even if it turns out that the stable compound doesn't exist, it is at least possible to write an article about the gaseous CaCl (if someone really wants...). --11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We have plenty of articles about compounds which don't exist, see sulfurous acid or ven ammonium hydroxide for examples! Deletion is not the only solution: if we think the articxles might reappear (as in the two cases above), it is better to explain why we don't think that the compounds exist. In this way, we stop well-meaning editors from creatin a new article from scratch on said imaginary compound! Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hexafluorosilicic acid

User:Petergkeyes is hiding out at this article, re-adding unduly detailed safety (especially for such a short article) info despite pleas from me and Smokefoot not to do so (and several reverts). I think his work on the article has frustrated Smokefoot enough to make him take a leave of absence from WP.

Wear protective clothes and gloves when handling. If swallowed, rinse mouth. DO NOT induce vomiting. Store separate from strong bases, food and feedstuffs. Corrosive to eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. Corrosive upon ingestion. Inhalation of vapors may cause lung oedema. Symptoms of lung oedema may take several hours to appear, and may be exacerbated by physical exertion. Attacks glass and stoneware. May be hazardous to the environment, may harm aquatic organisms.

Two requests for you guys:

  • Do we have a simple guideline on how much safety info to add? I read the relevant style guideline, but it's vague. I think we should draft on, quickly, if it doesn't already exist.
  • Would anyone be prepared to persuade this editor to conform to our usual style a bit more? He seems to only edit fluoridation related articles, and only from a certain POV! I tried to reason with him, but obviously unsuccessfully.

Ben (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Petergkeyes has over looked an even more dangerous hazard in drinking water, the rather scary - Dihydrogen monoxide, maybe we can get him to edit there? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph you quote is obviously against WP:NOTMANUAL. It is even written as imperative step-by-step instructions! It should be replaced by a short summary of the facts and refer the reader to more detailed articles such as fluoride toxicity and hydrogen fluoride. In fact, I've done that already.[4] If Petergkeyes keeps adding medical advice how to against policy, he should be warned (and if that doesn't work, blocked). --Itub (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For more details about my opinion about how we should treat toxicity of "mildly toxic" substances, please see User talk:Itub#NaF_toxicity. --Itub (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I left an extra message on the talkpage of Petergkeyes. These additions are indeed against WP:NOTMANUAL, and (for more dangerous compounds) may be also a problem of stuffing beans. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on [5] and [6]? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "the hazards associated with a chemical compound should ordinarily be described in the Chembox". I think the key question is the meaning of "ordinarily". I propose having a sort of "notability criterion" for toxicity. The criterion I have in mind has little correlation with LD50 or similar measures of toxicity; it is rather based on the available information about the mechanisms of toxicity and about actual cases of intoxications. Therefore, it depends heavily on the ubiquity of the substance in question. For example, we can very well have encyclopedic information about the "toxicity" of water and of sodium chloride (and indeed, we do!), because these are ubiquitous substances with many documented cases and known mechanisms. But we don't need a long exposition about the toxicity an obscure laboratory chemical for which all the available information is the MSDS. Sometimes, as in the case of dimethylmercury, one specific case with wide media attention can make its toxicity notable despite it being a relatively uncommon substance. In the case of hexafluorosilicic acid, I would say that there is little notability for its toxicity beyond the toxicity of hydrofluoric acid and perhaps fluorides and acids in general. So a brief mention with links to those articles should suffice. I'm not sure I agree with relegating this information entirely to the infobox, for usability reasons. The R- and S-phrases are little known and cryptic, so the reader might not notice them. A short (1-2 sentence) summary of the hazards in prose can be helpful, and does not need to be in a separate section (a short section invites people to expand it, which is not always I good idea). --Itub (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with you for H2SiF6. If you have the time, would you care to include your list at the style guidelines? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good, I like the state of the article as it is now. The main problem was the step-by-step MSDS-style text and the way the editor concerned was using it to push a POV about fluoridation. Why is WP so full of quacks? I wish we could just block them at birth.
Ben (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ammonium perrhenate

I don't have institutional access to journals anymore. There's an article in Inorg. Synth. which presumably describes the laboratory preparation of this compound:

Perhaps someone can read it and expand the article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you want adding? The article seems correct to me, and probably contains most of the verifiable data we're going to find on this compound. I am not sure that it is "the form in which rhenium is most commonly traded"—such an assertion should really have a reference, and I have almost always acquired my rhenium as the metallic powder—but otherwise I don't see great problems. Physchim62 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the "commonly traded" bit - I used to get it usually as the sodium salt.
With regard to the preparation section. The cited source doesn't suggest if it is a lab scale process or not. If Inorg Synth says the same, then we can say that too (... this procedure is also usable in the laboratory[2]...) I've come across some documents which suggest that any general rhenium-containing material may be dissolved in base piranha and precipitated the same way, but I can't remember the reference. Perhaps this ref will state that too? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Niobium monoxide

Should this be Niobium(II) oxide.--Stone (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes, depending on whether it is appropriate to give it an exception for common use of the name (which I doubt). Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template fixed

Hi all, I think I fixed the problems with Comments in the {{chemicals}} templates. They should now be editable, readable, visible, nestable, etc. If not completely correct, please point it out: After more than a year with a broken template, I think it now needs our attention. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC).