Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
    WikiProject iconChemistry Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
    Article alerts

    Articles for deletion

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Templates for discussion

    Miscellany for deletion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    (4 more...)

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (48 more...)

    How to write crystal water in the chem template

    For Tahoka Formation, how do I write the dot between the water and the rest of the formula? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't use chem, it has ugly output, instead use chem2. Chem2 converted the * to a centre-dot · . However I prefer to use • as it is more visible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Split x-ray diffraction from x-ray crystallography

    I propose splitting X-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography, discussion started at Talk:X-ray crystallography#Split x-ray diffraction and crystallography. The two are not the same, and there are many areas of XRD where the focus is not on detailed determination of atomic positions. Examples are powder diffraction where comparison is made to known samples, SAXS and many more. There are many areas/pages where it is relevant to say "use XRD" but wrong to say use "X-ray crystallography This would also help to improve the current rambling X-ray crystallography page. Comments to the X-ray crystallography talk page please. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitions of chemical element

    Is there a reason the definition of chemical element seems to vary according to the date you look at the article ? Currently it is defined as a monotypical atomic substance, but a few years ago it was the "species of atom with same atomic number" that was used. I wonder why it's not even mentioned in the article now, the Goldbook cited in the introduction gives the two. frwiki, dewiki, itwiki uses the atomic one, if I'm not mistaken.

    The first one seems more complicated and actually a bit dated/historical, the second one is more convenient. The first one is « simple substance Edit this on Wikidata » on Wikidata and there are several wikis that have articles about that. Maybe we should sort the interwikis and move articles to the right item ? TomT0m (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Class of DNA/RNA monomer-related structures

    Nucleobase is the heterocyclic variable group, nucleoside is nucleobase+sugar, nucleotide is nucleotide+phosphate. Is there a term for the parent category containing all of those? I'm working on organizing some synthetic-biology chemical pages, for which we don't have very many of any one of those three but we have some and they do form a coherent topic set. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a very worthy project. It looks like we have a full complement of articles on the main natural nucleosides, although some articles might lack a basic ref to a standard biochem textbook. Is there a good online biochem textbook that is not behind a paywall? It would be appropriate to have articles for each of the main natural nucleotide monophosphates (and eventually all of the diphosphates and triphosphates). I am trying to think of what core info we might want for these articles because otherwise their physical properties are probably comparable and unremarkable. Maybe their tautomers (for the nucleobase articles), base-pairing partners, their susceptibility to modification (N- or O-methylation as in epigenetics). Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Coverage of chemistry competitions for school pupils

    I am asking for the support of this community to move the following page from drafts to articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Baltic_Chemistry_Olympiad. That will help with increasing the coverage of chemistry competitions.

    Wikipedia covers several major competitions, such as the International Chemistry Olympiad and USNCO. However, there should be more pages to raise awareness. I have written a detailed overview of the Baltic Chemistry Olympiad and Competitions. It is one of the oldest international competitions, which over 30 years generated over 180 problems for training students and popularising chemistry.

    Olunet (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Chemistry Olympiad was why it was deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ninovium

    I just found ninovium article. I think this article should either be merged with Victor Ninov or with oganesson. Could somebody please take a look? ReyHahn (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Migratory insertion

    Hi all, I am a new user I was refining Draft:Fausto Calderazzo and I have moved some of the content in the article Migratory insertion. I have also enlarged the article Insertion reaction. Could you please provide some feedback? Thank you in advance.--Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is valuable to mention the old work on RMn(CO)5 but not much more. Wiki articles rarely describe how experiments were conducted. And we do not explain very much (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK), Instead our articles focus on facts, the results of experiments, not how they are designed (we want the "baby, not the delivery"). You may consider writing an article about MeMn(CO)5 or its acetyl derivative if you feel the urge to present the details for that work. Migratory insertion is an important step in several catalytic cycles (zero involve Mn), so we want the article to remain general. And a lot of work has been done since the 1960's, some summarized in Hartwig's textbook.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The expression "feel the urge" is unkind. I am a student who was studying the history of chemistry in his free time, I found this platform quite "rude" so far despite my goodwill and some recent development add more complication. Some replies I have received so far are too generic to be useful (not yours), so I think I should stop it here. Thank you all and see you maybe in the future.--Diegoriccio98 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chiral phosphates

    Would I be correct in my belief that the phosphate groups in DNA and RNA are chiral at P? Project Osprey (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The phosphate substructures would not be chiral. Line bond drawings for the DNA backbone are drawn asymmetrically, with one of these oxygen atoms as part of a P=O double bond, but bond resonance renders the substructure to be symmetrical. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways that the symmetry can be broken. One off the top of my head would be if one of the oxygen atoms, not part of a phosphodiester bond, is a rarer isotope, O17 or O18. ― Synpath 00:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Always fun to jump onto such arcane questions with imperfect knowledge: My understanding is that since DNA/RNA are chiral so the two terminal P-O's are nonequivalent. Every O is nonequivalent. Its asymmetric (not just dissymmetric). This comment is related to the problematic concept of "chiral center" and all that. IMHO. Now about chiral phosphates, that topic was a "thing" several decades ago with the prep of ROP16O17O18O2- by Knowles at Harvard (https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.bi.49.070180.004305). There is another P-chiral Knowles, who got a Nobel for chiral phosphines. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a bit of sloppy language on my part. I meant the phosphate P atoms in typical DNA/RNA polymer are not stereogenic centres. Side note, I was left in a bit of awe when I first learned that you can actually synthesize chiral phosphates reliably to query enzymatic reaction mechanisms. Though, I only recall a MeOP16O18OS2- system. ― Synpath 00:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chemical structure of DNA; hydrogen bonds shown as dotted lines.

    Thank you both. I've added a picture to try and help explain myself. The organophosphate groups here consist of a P bonded to 4 different groups, arraigned in rough tetrahedron O=P(O-)(OR1)(OR2). If that P was a C it would undoubtedly be chiral (obviously allowing for the =O being some other comparable group that satisfies the bond order). Synpath raises the issue of resonance but that isn't really a description of the ground state, I think at most that would allow the molecule to convert between 2 or more forms, all of which would be chiral. I'm also not sure how much phosphate is able to engage in resonance anyway, the bonding around P is exceedingly complex and I barely understand it - but to my mind the process of resonance shares themes with SN2 attack (no change in overall bond number, even at the transition state). Hydrolysis reactions are incredibly slow in phosphates, the uncatalyzed hydrolysis of dimethyl phosphate proceeds at about 1 × 10−15 s−1[1] that's a half life of thousands of years.

    1. ^ Wolfenden, Richard; Ridgway, Caroline; Young, Gregory (1 February 1998). "Spontaneous Hydrolysis of Ionized Phosphate Monoesters and Diesters and the Proficiencies of Phosphatases and Phosphodiesterases as Catalysts". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 120 (4): 833–834. doi:10.1021/ja9733604.