Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Mean relative atomic mass etc.

Hi all, I thought to put this as a topic in the Project rather than on the subject page as I think that it affects the subject pages for all the elements. There has been some debate about which synomynous terms to use for 'mean relative atomic mass' i.e 'atomic weight' and 'standard atomic weight' and the 'atomic weight' subject page is quite clear in explaining what the term means. The problem is that on the right hand side of the element subject pages, under General Properties, the term 'Standard atomic weight' is used, which is fine but then all the figures (that I have checked) have units after them. Following the 'standard atomic weight' link to the 'Atomic Weight' page tells you in the first line that it is a dimensionless property. I'm not a chemist and so am only going off what I have read around wiki but this is in itself an inconsistency and I'm favouring the general properties entry as the one more likely to be at fault. Should this be altered? James Jimbobolaffsson (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read Atomic mass and Molar mass. It may clarify some. The whole thing is a bit of a mess though. The "standard atomic weights" are recommended values for the "relative atom masses" which is a synonym of "atomic weight". Atomic weights are technically unit-less since they are relative. They can be easily converted to a molar mass by multiplying by the molar mass constant (1 g/mol). However, "molar mass" is a general term not necessarily referring to the standard atomic weight values (i.e. the molar mass of the elements actually varies) thus "standard atomic weight" is a reasonable tag for this information. Any ideas for improving this information is welcome.--Nick Y. (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for the input. I agree that standard atomic weight is the correct tag for this info. My contention is that it should be dimensionless, yet the template for all(?) the elements has dimensions. If I am right (and you seem to agree), I am unsure of how to change the template so as to correct the entries for all the elements assuming this is how the pages are put together and that this is, therefore, possible.Jimbobolaffsson (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The history of this tag, if I am not mistaken, is that it once read "molar mass" and thus the g/mol units, or perhaps it just read "atomic weight". Molar mass is not specific, yet actually what most people are ultimately looking for in this space is the molar mass derived from the standard atomic weight. I do not see a problem with removing the units but it will require many to understand the use of the molar mass constant. I think most will assume units of g/mol anyway. Certainly it is correct. The place it needs to be changed is here [1]. I will not change it at the moment to allow for further discussion, as it will affect a large swath of pages. Note that you need to go into edit mode to see the code below. Also therein the tags are a mishmash of terminologies: atomic weight, standard atomic weight, atomic mass, molar mass.

! Standard atomic weight

| {{{atomic mass}}}g·mol⁻¹

--Nick Y. (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Change made. --Nick Y. (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant Nick, thanks for your help. I never would have been able to sort that out. Much appreciated. Jimbobolaffsson (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Chemical substances

Category:Chemical substances has been proposed to be merged into Category:Chemical compounds. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

En dashes in chemical bonds

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#En dashes in chemical bonds (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox

There was an unanimous support from the wp:WikiProject Pharmacology to merge Template:Drugbox into Chembox (see Template talk:Drugbox#Advantages of a drugbox/chembox merger). Therefore, I've made a corresponding entry for the WikiProject Chemistry side to get comments and views:

Template talk:Chembox#Merging drugbox into chembox

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold phosphine complex

Hi, I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search [2] Blackash have a chat 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New articles

VUAA1 Geographic Chemistry Sodium chloroacetate Per Johannes Kolsaker Radical disproportionation Friedrich Krafft Hexamethylbenzene 1,2,3-trichloropropane 1,4 – bis(hydroxymethyl)-cyclohexane Selenourea Sulfur chloride pentafluoride Food chemistry (journal) Thomas H. Chilton Joan Massagué Solé Spiruchostatins A Advances in Chemical Physics Benjamin Widom Travis Williams (Chemist) Aquametry Capnellene Thioketene Theo H. Siegrist California Green Chemistry Initiative Decyne Otolith microchemical analysis Protactinium(V) oxide Cadmium stearate Actinium(III) oxide Ferric ammonium oxalate Europium barium titanate Picramic acid N-methylaniline Potassium salicylate Imazapic Sulfur trifluoride Milton L. Lee Phenylsulfinic acid ‎Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid ‎Niobium oxychloride ‎John Brown Herreshoff (chemist) ‎Chromyl fluoride ‎Gambogic acid ‎Altechromone A ‎Michellamine ‎Sophoraflavanone G ‎Europium(II) Sulfide Oliver Patterson Watts ‎Joseph Schlenoff ‎Rolf Appel ‎Californium oxychloride ‎Dimethylol Ethlyene Urea ‎3-Alkylpyridinium ‎2,5-diaminotoluene ‎Thomas Burr Osborne (chemist) ‎Slaframine David A. Tirrell ‎Oxoborinic acid ‎Magnetic chemistry ‎Teprotide ‎Organocerium chemistry

A few new ones I found I am sure most of them had already a look from sombody.--Stone (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started on synthetic ion channels a month ago, and will be chipping away at it for the next little while. Jon C (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OrganicBox templates up for deletion

{{OrganicBox hbond donor}} and {{Style OrganicBoxTD 2}} have been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.60 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Category for disputed chemical structures

(Continuing the thread - is on Archive 22)
I have categorised all the structures in English Wikipedia into two categories.

Category:Unclassified Chemical Structures - I initially found 4042 structures in Category:All free media, now with non orphan images removed contains 2060 images.
Category:Classified Chemical Structures contain all the non-orphan images - where they can be checked and moved to commons if suitable, or redrawn in commons.

I have started a proposal to delete the orphan images at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, and comments would be welcome there. I have a text list of all uploaders (extracted from the toolserver orphan images list), and I plan to use AWB to message the 622 different uploaders. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Electrolytic reduction

Hello. I am the Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, which is opening a new permanent exhibit this weekend that includes Captain Kidd's Cannon as one of its central artifacts. They are placing QR codes to Wikipedia articles in the exhibit and were interested in a few articles being updated with more specific information about electrolytic reduction in regards to iron and salt water. The museum has a lot of research & videos regarding the conservation of the cannon and we'd like to share these with Wikipedians to update appropriately (perhaps in the electrochemistry and redox articles, and in the William Kidd and Captain Kidd's Cannon articles.) Is there someone available with enough basic knowledge to be able to write intelligently about this? Thanks so much. LoriLee (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look I (but I might not have much to add). By the way, redux is a disambig page and it's the wrong word/article. The correct word/article is Redox - short for reduction/oxidation. Pyrotec (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to look into it. I can gather up online resources that the museum has already been using to research & explain the concept, if it'd help in interpreting it for Wikipedia. I'll post them here & on your talk page when I organize them.

Sorry about the Redox snafu. I actually did catch that and fixed it on another page but not this one! Suppose I'm already learning something, huh? Thanks again! LoriLee (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Quasi-enantimers"

Could someone please check to see if this revision is vandalism? Other contributions by the IP have been so, but it does have a citation and is not unbelievable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just checked the talk, it's registered the University of Hull. So this is probably a valuable contribution. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the "valuable contribution" statement. I vaguely remember something about quasi enantiomers from stuff about chiral resolution from uni. Aside from that they've provided a reference. It perhaps needs a better explanation though. I think it refers to the similar chemical behaviour of two different compounds which are opposite enantiomers (e.g. halogen analogues). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.57.134 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-citation by the author or member of the group. Eames is at Hull. A more general reference would be preferable regardless. Many if not most references to primary sources made by unregistered editors are self-citations. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Are the International Space Stations propellants environmentally friendly ? Does Kerosene and oxygen break down into water ? The propellants used for the spacecraft use different fuels and propellants, but how much harm do they do ? A student doing there homework could read the whole article and never know. I could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap_talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap_talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chemformula

{{Chemformula}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi, I'm thinking about trying to reduce the number of unassessed articles over the summer. I'm thinking of using Template:Grading as a guideline, but I'm not really experienced with the finer points of classifying articles just yet. An example is plasma polymerisation: it seems to meet the B class criteria, imho. Referencing seems ok (although I'd rather it were more copious), the article is clearly structured and appears to be comprehensive and understandable. Prose seems ok, but not to A/GA/FA standard. The diagrams are useful. Is this assessment correct please? Thanks, Brammers (talk/c) 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with your assessment of Plasma polymerisation. I wouldn't worry too too much about whether you're giving the "right" assessment; there are borderline cases which can get subjective, but as long as you're trying to follow the spirit of the guidelines it should be good. (P.S. The guidelines to use are at WP:ASSESS or WP:Grading scheme, not Template:Grading.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Template:Grading_scheme. Temporary loss of clue there, I'm afraid! Thanks very much for the links and your help. Brammers (talk/c) 21:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation from Mandarin

Hello! For improvement and correction of some Wikipedia articles I am looking for anyone, who can help me, to translate a short article from Mandarin Chinese into English or German language. The subject of this article is chemistry, about a pesticide. You can find the article here: http://www.6lib.com/pdf/ADE4FE11177769273.pdf It contains the pages 3 and 4 of this pdf file. It is very important for me to get a translation and I will very thank you for any help. Kind regards, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

New article

The new article Periodic systems of small molecules may need review. ChemNerd (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Inorganic compound

Comments welcome at Talk:Inorganic_compound#Mineral.27s_are_of_biological_origin. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:JCW and chemistry

The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are chemistry-related (at least as far as I could tell). I tried to make a division between medicine-related chemistry and "hard" chemistry, but I'm no chemist, and I didn't bother reading detailed descriptions of theses journals either. Feel free to edit the list, remove the useless ones, or move them around as need.

Non-medical

Medical

If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen bond

An editor keeps adding there something what looks like a project report to me [3]. Could someone have a look please. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

Your comments are requested at a move discussion taking place here. Any constructive input would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Chembox for Polymers?

Hopefully this is the right place to post this suggestion. It would better fit into the Wikiproject Polymers, but sadly it is inactive at the moment.

I just noticed that the usual Chembox Templates do not cover many of the properties vital to polymers, such as glass transition temperature, whether it is considered amorphous or semi-crystalline, degree of crystallinity, mechanical properties (tensile strength, ...), resistance to chemicals and others. So maybe an appropriate template already exists and I simply couldn't find it, but if this is not the case I think creating one would make polymer articles more informative.

-- Evaa 15:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaa (talk • contribs)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis categorised?

I'm not a chemist; I'm a mathematician, with some superficial all-round knowledge about natural science. Nevertheless, I sometimes edit chemistry articles or categories a little, at svwp (the Swedish wikipedia), or here on enwp.

Intermittently, I'm trying to get some order in Swedish "analysis" articles. Now, I've noted, that the "synthesis" articles largely are collected in a category, Category:Chemical synthesis, which also is a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions, and fairly easy to find. I assume that the corresponding "analysis" category is Category:Separation processes, which it took a long time to find.

Among the articles dealing with "chemical splitting up" in a more general manner are (in alphabetic order) Bond cleavage, Chemical decomposition, Dissociation (chemistry), and Fragmentation (chemistry). None of these are found in the Separation processes category; instead, you have to go to Category:Chemical bonding, Category:Chemical reactions, Category:Chemical processes, and Category:Tandem mass spectrometry, respectively, in order to find them. I found just one direct linkage between them; Fragmentation is declared a special case of dissociation, in both these articles. Partly, I suppose this is due to them dealing with different aspects; I do appreciate that bond splitting is categorised as closely related to chemical bonding.

Still, I'm surprised, especially of the isolation between the articles Dissociation (chemistry) and Chemical decomposition. There seems to be a clear overlap, both of the concepts and the articles; but it is very hard to find one of them, starting from the other. If I understand the definitions correctly, chemical decomposition should be the broader concept, since it does not necessarily assume reversibility, and nor ionisation. However, the dissociation article does not absolutely demand reversibility.

I've wondered whether these articles partly could reflect competing terminological conventions. If so, perhaps they should be merged. If not, they should clarify the relationships between the concepts. In either case, I'd like to put them (and similar) articles into the Category:Separation processes, or appropriate subcategories thereof.

As I said, I'm not a chemist; therefore, I may have misunderstood the situation. Thus, I'm not going to do anything for a while. If you think I'd better leave things as they are, please write so; if you think you are better apt to provide appropriate categorisation and cross references (since you know the subject), please do so! Else, I'll start after one or a couple of weeks, doing as well as I can.

Best, JoergenB (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Separation is to (literally) separate different compounds from a mixture. No bond breaking or bond making is supposed to happen (exceptions exist... derivatization), and instead of a mixture of ABCDEFGH, you now have separate fractions of pure A, pure B, ...

Dissociation and decomposition are similarly not related. Dissociation refers to how in vinegar, 4 % or so of acetic acid present exists as H+ CH3COO-; the rest remains undissociated CH3COOH. It is usually a reversible process. Decomposition is how things "spoil" when you heat it, expose it to air, etc. Once again, not related. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of "separation"; re-reading the articles, I agree that mainly this "more physical" separation seems intended. Thus, I suppose, that if the "splittings" should be categorised, it should be to a sister or supercategory of Category:Separation processes.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your distinction between "dissociation" and "decomposition". Our article defines chemical decomposition as ...the separation of a chemical compound into elements or simpler compounds. It examplifies with e.g. electrolysis of water, 2 H₂0 -> 2 H₂+0₂, and with thermal decomposition. It is not obvious from the articles why dissociation should not be another example. If the main difference is whether the process is reversible or not, then at least something about the process being irreversible should be added to the decomposition article.

Would you characterise radiolysis of water as dissociation or decomposition (or neither)? (When I read about it, there seemed to be some important equlibrium involved, depending mainly on temperature.)JoergenB (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think bond splitting is related at all to separation processes. Like you said, separation processes tend to be physical processes, e.g. crystallization, distillation, chromatography, etc., in which bonds are not split at all.

If you dissolve table salt in water, you cause the crystal lattice to dissociate into hydrated Na+ and Cl- ions in solution. Would "decomposition" be appropriate? The IUPAC gold book defines decomposition as "The breakdown of a single entity (normal molecule, reaction intermediate, etc.) into two or more fragments." [4] I think context is important; chemists use the word decomposition most often when bad things happen to a compound - heat, light, water, etc. I won't be too worried about the structures of these categories. Perhaps not everything fits neatly in a box. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the difference is a question of attitude - Do we want this to happen, or not? - more cross references should be good.

Or do you mean that dissociation mainly is a question of ionic balance? In other words, do you mean that 2 H₂0 -> 2 H₂+0₂ is decomposition, since the resulting entities are neutral; while 2 H₂0 -> H₃O⁺+H0^- (into ionic parts) is dissociation? However, our articles indirectly describe not only "heterolysis" but also "homolysis" as examples of dissociation, if I got it right.

If there are differences of this kind, they should be made more clear. You cannot rely on the general usage of the word decomposition. The OED gives several separate meanings; one being Used of the separation of substances into their chemical elements..., as separates from another sense: The natural dissolution of compound bodies; disintegration;.... Of course, that IUPAC book should be a much better source than OED, when it comes to chemistry; however, you need to explain the (approximate) meanings.

I think there should be adequate references also to bond cleavage. Right now, e.g., heterolysis contains the text ...heterolysis...is chemical bond cleavage of a neutral molecule..., with a link, not to bond cleavage, but to chemical bond. Is this by purpose?

Yes, the world outside mathematics is not as clear-cut well-defined as I'm used to:-); I'll have to live with that. So, would an approximately defined category like chemical splitting be OK, if decomposition is too precise? JoergenB (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: The dissociation article lacks sources. Is there an item in the IUPAC book which could be added as reference? Ibid.

Well, it is great to see a mathematician step near the truly messy world of chemistry. In WE-Chem we are stuck with a lot of messy reality. The profession and the technology has been so tangibly and so dramatically useful for so long that a vast amount of jargon and processes was invented way before tidy theories and tidy explanations were created by tidy organizations. 50000 or so publication appear annually (http://www.cas.org/ASSETS/836E3804111B49BFA28B95BD1B40CD0F/casstats.pdf ). So, JoergenB, you will just have to be patient with our articles: we know that many are under-or ill-referenced placeholders written by well-intentioned folks like you and me. Wikipedia-Chem-English a mess, but it is an improving mess. Chemistry is not for the faint-hearted nor for those that insist on tidy self-consistent explanations. For that, you'd need to stay closer to mathematics. Smirk. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

C&EN 82 (10) 29

Apparently there's this article in C&EN, volume 82, issue 10, page 29 called "Grumping about Gaussian". However, I can't find it on the CE&N website. It's referenced a few times online, so I'm lead to believe it actually exists, but since Gaussian's a bit controversial, I'd like someone to actually confirm that it exists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a short one-paragraph blurb titled "Grumblings about Gaussian" in that issue. I can email you the text if you wish. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in what it says, just that it actually exists. Is it part of a larger article? One that would have doi? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not part of a larger article. C&EN issues typically include a collection very short (1 to 2 paragraph) news items, and this is one of them. I don't see DOIs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any article where would reader/student learn of the relationship between degree of dissociation of an acid and pH of its solvent?

Hello people! I need advise (to help me, where I am stuck in article writing).

Is there any such an article, which would help non-chemist reader to let_know/understand, that weak acids are dissociated differently if submerged/dissolved in environment with different pH? (the same acid/compounds molecules are more dissociated at pH 7 and less dissociated at pH 5.5?)

To let You understand my case:

Firstly, I will start slowly and generally:

I am biologist and I do need to explain the chemical concept just enough, to let reader understand more general biological concept (topic of the article I am writing). Unfortunately, I can not find any article which would be dealing with that underlying chemical concept, or any section of any article dedicated to it in detail. (Or if I do, it is just only tangentially related, and so full of equations, that no normal biologist [or even layman] would ever understand it).

Somehow, somehow, I think it must, most probably, still be here somewhere, but I can not locate the proper article, proper section. Please help me find it (and I would use it as link for the reader in 'my' article for more details). I hope, you are more oriented in the structure of chemistry articles, than I am. To find linkable article is my plea.

More specifically:

I need to describe what the 'acid trap' is in the plant cell (and I need not, to waste too much words on it there, because even the acid trap is just one step of the chemiosmotic model, which in turns underlies the polar auxin transport - the target article). In fact the chemical property of dissociation is just one logical condition of the acid trap only, so I would prefer just to link to it, to allow flow of the text to be focused on the biological part (which in itself is quite difficult to explain and understand and be more digestible)

Acid trap of the organic acids is result of the different dissociation rates of the weak acids in different environments. Well, outside the cell the pH is lower (about 5,5) and inside the cell pH is quite higher (pH 7). Because of this, the weak acid (in this case auxin is the organic acid) outside the cell is dissociated only partly. (It is important here), the protonated form lacks charge }being relativelz lipophilic] and diffuse freely through lipidic plasma membrane inside the cell. Well, while being inside the cell, auxin (or just anz weak acid) immediatelly almost completelly dissociates. It is traped inside. It can not leave the cell on its own through diffusion.

Is there any such an article which would help non-chemist reader to understand, that weak acids are dissociated differently if they are submerged in environment with different pH? And why? (Not for me, but for the reader of the article Polar auxin transport)

Dissociation; pKa; acid; weak acid - non of them were helpful in the respect. Is there anything else, where would reader/student understand relationship between pH and degree of dissociation of an acid?

With regards and hopes Reo ⁺ 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Henderson-Hasselbach equation, buffer?

$pH=pK_{a}+log([conjugatebase]/[acid])$

When $pH<pKa,pH-pK_{a}<0$

log([conjugatebase]/[acid])<0

[conjugatebase]/acid>1

For example, if your pKa is 7 and your pH is 3, pH - pKa = -4, and [conjugate base]/[acid] = 10^-4 You have 10^4 acid for every one base. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think 50 % of IAA is dissociated at pH 5.5. Its pKa according to reaxys is about 4.5, which means at pH 5.5, 90 % of IAA is dissociated. At pH 7, 97 % is dissociated. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC) That doesn't take the basicity of the indole into account, of course, but I couldn't find the pKa or pKb. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman! Thank You a lot, for your interest and for your help! Well I wished to react, even though its so late here and I will react more in detail tomorow (here is two o'clock after midnight :-D). So I just wanted to say hi and thanks, and that your rewording was rather nice job (though, I will touch it a little yet) and that You are right with the portion of dissociated IAA. It is definitelly quite more then 50% . (I recall there was paper by Kramer 2004, who calculated it exactly). My mystake,... I left it there with the misleading wording... Henderson-Hasselbach equation article, huh ... jeah it is there, but somehow so difficult to understand it from there (with its given purpose oriented towards calculating pH ), even for me, its just non trivial to abstract it through (so I guess for biologist-students or non-chemists_and_non-biologists laymens it would be really hard). :) With greetings Reo ⁺ 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the calculation I showed above (sorry it's not pretty) was helpful. While it is mainly used for buffers, you can use it to calculate speciation at a given pH, which is what I did here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Feature List removal candidacy of List of elements by stability of isotopes.

I have nominated List of elements by stability of isotopes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.). --S Larctia (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications

Members of this project may be interested to see that discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics, along with several deletion proposals for lists of publications in computer science areas, have been started. These follow a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology that lead to that list being deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kesterite

I've moved this article out of AFC, but it seems there's no agreement in sources what this name refers to, or the related CZTS. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Normal procedure would be to split it into CZTS (chemical+solar cell info) and kesterite (mineral). Can also stay as a mineral article, but the solar cell info is on films, and thus hardly fits. Can tidy all this when time permits. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European chemical Substances Information System

There is a (IMHO silly) DR on European chemical Substances Information System. Any input is welcomed. --Leyo 07:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in chemistry at AfD

List of important publications in chemistry has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry. --Lambiam 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donald Engelman

Could someone please take a look at this and assess it for inclusion (or not) into Wikipedia? The subject is a Guggenheim fellow , NIH fellow and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Is notable, since he fulfills criteria #3 (here) but there doesn't seem to be a lot of independent coverage of his career. The article seems to need some additional refs. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-ferrous metals

Guys, can you create the article Non-ferrous metals? It is currently a redirect up for deletion. Thanks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the redirect by a stub. Please review and expand. --Lambiam 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded it and nominated it for DYK. I hope it passes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion. What the article clearly needs most now, is information on current uses of non-ferrous metals. --Lambiam 11:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Before any publicity, an experienced chemist, materials person, or metallurgist should have a go at refining the article. It is pretty green.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(reset) It got promoted :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

List of organic compounds

I know some people like lists, But is there a real need for this page? I could see a minor use for it as a sort of DAB page, showing all the WP organic compounds, but that does not fit in with the title line This is a list of well-known organic compounds, including organometallic compounds, to stimulate the creation of Wikipedia articles - then strictly speaking, neither does the current list - if it's main purpose is to stimulate the creation of Wikipedia articles, then by definition they should all be red links! What constitutes "well known"? - chemicals on sale? If so I could go to work tomorrow and export the Alfa Aesar catalogue and quickly add 30,000 red links (and just to keep it neutral - I expect a Sigma Aldrich employee could do the same). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's redirect it to organic compound. This list is too well-visited (1k hits a day) to delete outright. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I've a feeling that as soon as I do that, 1001 people will be reverting... I think I will add a note o0n the talk page - pointing here first. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I was just wondering where this had gone. I used it as a basis for creating several hundred entries in Wiktionary a few months ago, and wanted to link back. Ah well! 86.182.222.189 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable fats

Does anyone know how to go about compiling a list of vegetable fats? In this discussion, two other editors and I have determined that the vegetable fats currently listed on List of vegetable oils should probably be split off into their own list at List of vegetable fats, but we're unsure how many other vegetable fats there are or how we might determine what they are. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Basic concepts of/introduction to ...

There is an AfD on Basic concepts of quantum mechanics that raises some important questions for many technical articles:

Should there be separate articles for explanations at different knowledge levels?
If so, how many levels, and how can readers be guided to the level that is appropriate for them? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SyntheticPages (2nd nomination)

This chemistry-related AFD has been relisted because of few comments, so it's probably worthwhile for a few chemists to drop by and give their opinion. ChemNerd (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorization (again)

Category:Phenols is, in my opinion, way too subdivided into subcategories. According to this tool, there are 308 (!) subcategories. Many contain only one or two articles. I'd like to start a discussion on how to trim this down considerably. To start, I would suggest that categories that make the distinction between natural and synthetic are unnecessary (and in many cases that distinction is meaningless because phenols isolated from natural sources may also be prepared synthetically). Below in the collapsed box is a list of all 308 subcategories (some may be duplicates, though). ChemNerd (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

All 308 subcategories

I fully agree — especially with your comment about natural vs. synthetic. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, this overcategorization is nutty, almost clinically. Removing the synthetic vs natural distinction will be a big step. Merge the salicylate categories, the naphthol categories, the flavonols. I would just use your common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs)

New or improved articles

As in the past, I work with aspiring chemists in developing articles for Wikipedia. This fall we aimed a little more on article improvement vs article creation. Already these articles have been considerably upgraded by colleagues here, especially Rifleman 82 and Materialscientist. We're not quite done, but here is the list: thiourea dioxide (unusual reagent used in textiles), boroxine (class of heterocycles), ceiling temperature (concept in polymer chemistry), 1,2-diaminopropane (smallest chiral diamine), levopimaric acid (major component of tree rosin), titanium ethoxide (used in sol-gel processing, also info on Zr derivative), chain walking (concept in polymer chemistry) mineralizer (tool in producing synthetic minerals), , humulone (component of good beer, apparently), sulfenamide (a functional group useful in vulcanization), sodium decavanadate (focused on the polyoxovanadate anion), benzotriazole (expanded, used as a corrosion inhibitor with Cu), aluminium phosphide (expanded description of a rodenticide, also phosphide).--Smokefoot (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention this boroxin(e) to avoid confusion in terminology. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

From the help desk

There's a request at the help desk for a chemist to review the new article Ditetrahydrofurylpropane. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chembox subst explosive

Template:Chembox subst explosive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More eyes on this please

I have absolutely no idea if Hydroboration–oxidation reaction and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hydroboration are covering the exact same subject, cross over, or completely different things. Clearly, a more expert opinion and review needed here. Thanks muchly for any help that can be given. sonia♫ 08:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are talking about the same things. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

List of EINECS substances 200-xxx-x

Hi, someone is creating lists which just seem to be copied from some database (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Perhaps someone from this project could take a look at whether this is justified, as this is not my field. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look. I think they're a violation of WP:NOT DIRECTORY. The purposes of an encyclopedia would be better served by a category for those few substances on the list which are notable and have articles. As the number is arbitrary, the numerical arrangement of them gives no information. Regardless of copyright, this is essentially equivalent to a list of all chemicals numerically by CAS number, a function appropriate for CAS. The Commission has a good public website for looking upthis information, and for downloading it. I'm noinating for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OrganicBox templates

two OrganicBox templates have been nominated for deletion, I don't know where in the coding that the infobox calls these, so if someone knows, they should check it, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_20

76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chaos in chemistry cattree

The Category:Screenshots of television (catgraph) is in the chemistry cattree, i.e. a sub^xcategory of Category:Chemical substances. Can anybody fix this? --Leyo 12:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is that Category:Water is a subcategory of Category:Inorganic compounds. Category:Water has tons of sub^xcategories such as Category:Poland, Category:Fishing or Category:Whale collisions with ships. Is there anything we can do to transform this “catmindmap” back to a cattree or do we have to accept this chaos? --Leyo 09:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here is how TV screenshots are a branch of chemistry: Chemistry-->Chemical substances-->Chemical mixtures-->Homogeneous chemical mixtures-->Glass-->Glass applications-->Display technology-->Television-->Television images-->Screenshots of television -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Until Glass the chemistry cattree is OK. Where can this chain best be broken? --Leyo 15:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I took Category:Television out of Category:Display technology and instead put the article Television in Cat:Display technology. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed Category:Water from the chemistry cattree. The CatScan for files in the chemical substances cattree now looks better, at least with depth=4. --Leyo 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Aldehydes && Template:Alchemy

{{Aldehydes}} and {{Alchemy}} have been nominated for deletion. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:phenols

Above (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Overcategorization_.28again.29) I asked about the overcategorization of phenols. Based on the suggestions I received, I starting consolidating some of the hundreds of subcategories, starting with ones that only had a couple (at most) of articles classified in them. I then starting marking the emptied categories for deletion. However, User:NotWith (who seems to be the same person as the blocked User:Nono64) has simply reverted my changes and started to recreate the deleted categories. Any assistance or guidance from others would be appreciated. ChemNerd (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For anyone that is interested, Category:Polyphenol stubs has been nominated for deletion by another user. ChemNerd (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Organic table information" & "Inorganic table information" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organic table information & Inorganic table information. Since you had some involvement with the Organic table information Inorganic table information redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Energy level

The article Energy level is about the various energy levels of atoms, ions, molecules, and crystals. I have placed the WikiProject Chemistry tag on its Talk page indicating Start Class and High Importance. There were already WikiProjects Physics and Spectroscopy tags on its Talk page, indicating also Start Class and High importance. H Padleckas (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

RM

There's a requested move at Talk:Cation–pi interaction that could probably use the input of some people who have more knowledge than the layman. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

New Articles Online, Sorry If We Caused Any Problems

I saw a note from Smokefoot on one of my students pages, and I now feel guilty for not posting here sooner.

I teach a graduate-level course on "organic reactions" and, as part of that course, I help students identify important (to organic chemists) reactions which have no article or only a very short article (generally limited to Stub-class). We spend a few class periods discussing the Wikipedia, audience analysis, peer/self review, and some technical aspects of the Wikipedia (making graphics, mostly). For the writing part, we bring in a professional instructor in scientific writing. The students outline an article, get feedback, write a draft, get peer review, revise, get reviews from me, and finally revise once more. The finished products are moved into the articles. I emphasize etiquette: we strive to choose articles that are not under active development and they are told to note their work-in-progress on the "Talk" page. It is not my intention to "drop" a large bolus of mediocre articles on the community - each article, although not perfect, has actually been reviewed for writing, content, etc. by at least three people before making it out of the sandbox! A list of articles we have contributed to can be found at my user page and if you have any major problems with one of my users, please don't hesitate to contact me.

In the future, some highly motivated graduate students are forming a club in our department to do further work on the Wikipedia. I will be supervising. We hope to work on some of the bigger game - higher impact, longer articles - as a group in addition to smaller edits on our own pet areas.

I think this is also the appropriate venue to thank you all for your collective work to make Wikipedia a better, more reliable source. I have seen it come a long way in chemistry in the past few years. Thank you also for the WikiProject Chemistry documents, especially the style manual! I found them clear and very helpful. We have developed some nice work-flows for making reasonable SVG graphics for chemists, which I'd like to post.

Thanks again for all your hard work. I hope we have helped in a small way and I hope that we will contribute more in the future.Dweix (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I noticed your comments on the Sonogashira coupling; that's a great example of the sort of involvement we hope from instructors engaged in Wikipedia projects. Thanks too for reminding your students of the important copyright issues. I have a suggestion: have the students start working ON the article, rather than making large-scale changes in singular edits. Do encourage them to drop by and say hi here. This way, they can get support from the beginning, and they can benefit from people showing them how to do stuff (e.g. use the <ref> method of citation), followed by their emulation. That way, we reduce any stylistic re-work. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the person editing that article now is not my student. Jcap17 did the major edit and did not have copyright issues or referencing issues (we take care of that in-class). I was looking over her work when I noticed the problems.Dweix (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, do remind them to check out the article and user talk pages from time to time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to figure out how to get an email sent when a new comment is placed on a page, then I could just have them do that.Dweix (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The main thing is to keep the edits interactive: announce intentions, listen to responses, add changes in chunks. My personal preference is to try to teach students about using secondary sources (reviews and books), per WP:SECONDARY. As we say, "any idiot can find journal articles," (they're not really idiots, I know), but the higher level skill lies in finding the overviews. The other problem is that journal picking tends to favor English-language sources, which gives students a parochial impression of the scientific world.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for doing stuff in sandbox (even offline) and then adding it. Just one small thing to make it go better. Make an announcment on talk page that some major work is going on in sandbox or offline. Then if no one says anything, really no right to complain about a big revision dropping in (and we all know there are dead articles). We gotta be able to makes stuff like this work...it can't be that hard to onboard people?TCO (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Having said that I see a lot of information removed after the edits , takes a lot of work to put it back in. Suggestion: why not focus on organic reactions that have developed in the last 10 years! Go for the niche applications V8rik (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for input on revisions to biomonitoring article

Hi, I have proposed a new section to the Biomonitoring article on that article’s talk page for, but have not received any response as I don’t think that talk page sees a lot of traffic. I'm new to Wikipedia and have a WP:COI with the subject, but I believe my proposed changes to the article help bring it more up to date with evolving science on the subject.

If anyone is interested, I’d really appreciate any feedback or suggested revisions to my proposed material. Thanks. - Unbachar23 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Raney nickel

The article Raney nickel needs a liitle help to avoide FAR and to remove the citation neded tags. --Stone (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to help it. TCO (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Selected articles and images for Portal:Nanotechnology

The nanotechnology portal had laid abandoned for quite some time, but I'm now setting it up to automatically rotate through a selection of articles and images over the course of a year. I'm looking for some input on which content should be used; if you have any ideas, the discussion is at Portal talk:Nanotechnology/Selected article. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I am going to work on this portal now. --Extra999 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden resonance structures?

I came across a compound which has carboxylic acid groups attached to all the para positions in tetraphenylethylene. Do any of the anions have resonance structures which delocalize over the entire molecule? --HappyCamper 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be very unlikely for the anionic-O electrons to resonate anywhere except into the adjacent carbonyl-O (normal carboxylic acid or carboxylate resonance), considering valence-bonding or standard ways that resonance is usually explained. There is certainly likely to be some sort of electronic interaction as usual for benzoic acid probably even some extended pi systems could be drawn from an atomic-orbital overlap perspective. But not the type of extended resonance you seem to be proposing (focusing on the anion type of structure, therefore I suspect you mean "O lone-pair push into ring, through alkene, into another ring, into its carbonyl" for example). DMacks (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their unique identifier - for instance by their PubChem number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational access to information. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:NFPA-H=0

Category:NFPA-H=0 and 14 other categories which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Category:Molecular_formula_disambiguation_pages. PamD 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Chemistry will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in chemistry's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

women's roles in chemistry's history, society and culture? We are still waiting... V8rik (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So there are no women who have ever contributed historically to chemistry? I'm a bit surprised by that! SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

...and of course there is this ~ It would be awesome to see content expanded on these women, and others! SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess he's never heard of Marie Curie. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

you can address me directly, Kaldari (more polite). Yes the curie's are there but how many women are Nobel laureates in Chemistry?. V8rik (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, peeps. One team, one fight. Srsly. You gotta try to find things to make things work indirectly sometimes...like judo. This is probably not the target rich environment that Project Horse is, sure, but ya never know...maybe there is some connect if we scratch heads really hard... but if someone finds something useful that helps both parties all for the good, even if going at it for different reasons.

For instance, I'm not into some super affirmative action gender quota thingie...but at the same time, I happen to like one topic that is "female" oriented. [Gymnastics, don't tease me...I'm sensitive! ;-)] So Sarah wants to find the content that interests women. I just...eh...want to get the particular content expanded. Different ulterior motives, but still a payoff if it works.

An analogy is Sue G. wants a less kldugey interface to entice newbies and low quality editors. I want a less kludgey interface because it will increase the output of the power users! Like working in MS Word is about a bazillion times easier than wiki markup tables and the refs all displayed inline in edit mode. Also, it makes the hurdles lower to bring smart academics and the like who know a heck of a lot about a topic AND how to write prose...but who don't want to become computer coding jocks with the damned wikitables and cite stuff (and find it hard to really look at and edit the text when like 50% of it is markup code. WYSWYG is the norm in office environment for about last 20 years at least.

TCO (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive notions! Frankly, I'm trying to do a few things - and not all women like to edit about women's history :) If we can bring more women and underrepresented groups to Wikipedia by having them edit whatever floats their boats, I'm a happy person. But, we also need more women's history coverage on Wikipedia. It's a win win :) We have some projects signing up already, and I do hope WP:Chemistry will jump on board! SarahStierch (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes on your quest. Not sure how we can help. Our coverage is mostly of things (chemicals, lab equipment, etc.) and concepts (chemistry). We usually don't write much about contemporary chemists, so those who do get written about tend to be dead, white men. FWIW Thatcher has a degree in chemistry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another one: Elena Ceaușescu V8rik (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Women chemists might be a good place to start. Gobonobo ^T ^C 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science probably another article of interest. --HappyCamper 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

SarahStierch, greetings! Amazing... I'm not the only female in the Wikiverse. It is nice to see that! I was trying to figure out how to contribute to the Chemistry WikiProject, noticed several pages that could use copy edits, then spent the past two hours reviewing the Manual of Style, open article list, tag system, bot page to-do listing etc. I am still uncertain what the criteria is for participation though. I know this isn't the appropriate way to introduce myself and make inquiries, but since it is WikiWomen's History Month, and I AM a woman, I thought I'd seize the bull by the horns, so to speak. I was grateful for Gobonobo's kind suggestion to peruse Category:Women chemists. After a cursory review, it seemed that Angela Merkel, yes, The Chancellor, is in fact one of the better examples of living female chemists, at least according to her Wikipedia biography. She was graduated with a university degree in Physics, worked as a professional in the field of physical chemistry for 13 years (1978 - 1990) for a government organization (I think it was...it was in Germany, about which I am less familiar), wrote a doctoral dissertation in Quantum Chemistry and earned a PhD for that. She even published a few research papers. I could understand if you didn't want to focus on Mrs. Merkel exclusively for Chemistry, given her visibility in other areas at present, and the fact that she no longer works in any scientific field, nor has done so for many years. On the category listing for Women chemists, I also noticed Cleopatra the Alchemist and Mary the Jewess. This is questionable, particularly the latter, as she seems mostly mythological, first appearing in the days of Deuteronomy and continuing to receive accolades for her alchemical and alembic-making expertise through Medieval times and the Renaissance! (Also, I am a Jewish woman, and Mary the Jewess is a cognomen that is ridiculous on a variety of levels.) I will dig around for some other living (or even deceased) female chemists of note, as I would prefer that those two individuals, Cleo (not the Queen of Egypt) and Mary, were replaced, or at least appeared less prominently by virtue of there being more than a dozen other Women chemists listed. There must be other prominent women chemists besides Madame Curie and Mrs. Merkel... although Rifleman 82 is correct about the preponderance of dead white men. Final item: If I want to copy edit or improve internal references to a {{Chemistry}} WikiProject page, may I just announce my intentions on the talk page and proceed? I read the Chemistry Style Guide, understand and agree to comply with the standards of incremental editing. I'm thinking of the Periodic table page in particular. Lord knows which "Chemical Society" is referred to there! However, I did find an existing Wikipedia page about the relevant one. THAT page has plenty of sentence structure irregularities, so I'd like to tidy it up a bit, then go through the Periodic table page and replace all the un-Wiki-linked references to "Chemical Society" accordingly. (As you no doubt know, there were many chemical societies in the 1800's, not all in the U.K. either. Mendeleev and his peers even had a chemical society or three in Russia <insert minor smile of irony and goodwill>). I'd also like to help in a few other areas for which my skill set and limited knowledge is suited. I won't go into detail now, as this as been quite enough already ♥ Thank you for your patience. --FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will remove this excessively lengthy verbiage and put it somewhere else, in a day or two, as it doesn't belong here ♥ I'm sorry. --FeralOink (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A new barnstar

Do you guys like this?

		The Chemistry Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to users who have made significant contributions to the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 05:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it.TCO (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive response, feel free to use it. I 've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Materials, you can use it by: --Extra999 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:The Chemistry Barnstar|Your message here. ~~~~}}

This barnstar is something that you'd award a 6-year old. Image of nalgene baby toys.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

inviting comments on a proposal to modify the WikiProject Chemistry Manual of Style.

I encourage WikiProject Chemistry members and supporters to comment on a proposal to rename a section title and, more importantly, make stronger limitations on the use of primary sources in chemical articles. Please chime in on the talk page for the CHEMMOS. Thanks USEPA James (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

CORRECTION--the current proposal would put stronger limitations on the use of blogs and popular media headline news as sources on chemical pages. It would also give an explicit preference to secondary reviews of primary research to preclude health and environmental advocate editors from promoting their pet hypotheses using THE LATEST RESEARCH IN THE NEWS!!! USEPA James (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request an Assessment

Could F. Gordon A. Stone be added and assessed by wikiproject chemistry?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

He is cited just once in wikipedia, does he qualify? V8rik (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, could you clarify this. In terms of links, it is not an orphan, it has >4 links to the article.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gilderien, the article is not orphaned so nothing wrong there. In general for chemists with a bio page I would expect relevant citations in one or more chemistry pages. For this chemist there is just one in the Cyclopentadienylcobalt dicarbonyl article but this article is not even a discovery article. In what way has this chemist been relevant to chemistry remains unclear. The focus should be more on the chemistry than on the person. V8rik (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Having a copy of his autobiography, I can find several more important discoveries and works than the paper cited in Cyclopentadienylcobalt dicarbonyl, and will add some more content and citations to some moe chemistry articles.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 17:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what he really discovered. Stone was best known for being prolific. CpCo(CO)₂ is Wilkinson. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tris (ethylene) Platinum?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

we have a winner doi:10.1039/DT9770000271 V8rik (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comments required

Should Wharton olefin synthesis and Wharton reaction be merged? Please comment at Talk:Wharton reaction D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM

A group of articles of interest to this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed - Conjugation

I have been working through all the pages that have links to the disambiguation page Conjugation, but I have been unable to resolve those listed here. I am hoping that an expert from this project will be able to fix these. MOFs for Catalysis, Bissulfosuccinimidyl suberate, Autoinducer, Diazonium compound, Hyperconjugation, Buchner ring expansion, Quinone methide, Steroid Delta-isomerase. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done all bar Bissulfosuccinimidyl suberate and Autoinducer. Chris (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:SIDS

Template:SIDS presumes that the target page at OECD Screening Information DataSet (SIDS) is pdf. This is not always the case (e.g., the L-ASCORBIC ACID page is html). Please see the proposed update to the template here: Template:SIDS/sandbox; and test case here: Template:SIDS/testcases. Decstop (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just go ahead. Due to the limited number of transclusions, you may check them all after implementation of the update. --Leyo 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Equation image → TeX

Is there someone with good skills in TeX? The (upper) equation image in Sodium phosphide#Uses should be converted, but my tries were not successful. --Leyo 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We also should aim to remove the English from this and other equations to the extent that is convenient or possible.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Which (if any) of those experimental conditions actually important to keep? I say "none", because the point in this context is the reactants and products, and the prose can comment on any conditions required to make it work well or...whatever other details are relevant for the article. Which reduces it all to plaintext, don't even need TeX. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the TeX one would want is probably some combination of \overset{}{} and \underset{}{}, but I'm not sure if there is a way to make the \rightarrow "automatically the correct width", or if one just uses normal tex ways to make it a specific size. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to remove the experimental conditions. --Leyo 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Like this? DMacks (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine for me. --Leyo 15:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

what??????

I was trying to find out what two chemicals and/or elements you would have to mix to make the colours pink and purple for a science project but when i read all of this none of it made sense but the purple. Can someone please change the info so its easier to read?????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.55.198 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Brake_shoe_metal_specimen.JPG being used to show readers that C, P and Si are metals

The image "File:Brake_shoe_metal_specimen.JPG" (talk) is causing confusion across WP and leading to some embarrassing mistakes. A glance at the picture will show why: 3 of the 4 samples in the back row are nonmetals (Si, C and P). Example: the picture was being used with the caption "Some metal pieces" at the top of metal; I fixed that, but it looks like similar elementary (ha ha) mistakes persist on other pages using the image. These pages (most not in English) need to be fixed and, imo, the title and description of the file need to be changed. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The image is on commons, so I filed a rename request there. DMacks (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Renamed, with a thought - why is this image (showing only few metals) used in articles on metals? It is not so difficult to either make another photo or a montage of our excellent metal pictures. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see only Si, C, Cu, Ni and a false formulas/descripion for: P, Mo, Mn and Cr. They are perhaps compounds or alloys of this elements, but not the pure elements. Perhaps is the japanese description the right description?! I can't read Japanese. An image without a right description have a no value for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the very confusing image from the Metal article too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols

This seems relevant to you guys, since it's discussing whether or not to merge/redirect to this project, or just delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

C8H3NO

I have nominated this page for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C8H3NO. ChemNerd (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GIF ball-and-sticks models

Are the following orphaned GIF ball-and-sticks models worth being moved to Commons?

--Leyo 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That trioxidane appears to be a dup of an older revision of commons:File:Trioxidane 3D.gif (uploaded to commons at the same time by the same editor). DMacks (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

...and likewise for that carbonyl sulfide vs commons:File:Carbonyl sulfide 3D.gif. For this one, I'd even support deletion on commons because we have higher-quality ones in commons:Category:Carbonyl sulfide (including some based on cited structural parameters). DMacks (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

...and likewise for that cyanogen chloride vs commons:File:Cyanogen chloride 3D.gif. For this one too, I'd support deletion vs the higher-quality commons:File:Cyanogen-chloride-3D-balls.png. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Iron titanate" doesn't appear to have this actual form. Titanate#Metatitanates notes that when "titanate" refers to TiO₃, it's not discrete ions, and Ilmenite (the apparent actual compound for this formula) agrees with the "it's not that simple" analysis. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I forgot that there is no bot on en.wikipedia to insert {{ShadowsCommons}} or {{NowCommons}}. OK, the last three are clear cases: delete here as NowCommons. A DR might be initiated on Commons afterwards. I'll file a DR for Iron(II) titanate. --Leyo 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Chemistry Barnstar

Template:The Chemistry Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 06:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: This is only a merger proposal of two barnstars.

Question

I would like to know a bit more about the linear dinamic range as well as the sensitivity of the FID,TCD,SCD,PID,AED,ECD,FPD,and the TID. The properties that the stationary phase should have for the GC and the LC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.10.190 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for coordinating the improvement of Wikipedia's chemistry articles. You are more likely to get help if you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (and you'll probably have to elaborate and explain your acronyms, too, because the question doesn't make too much sense as is). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Natural phenol

It just seems that this article is some form of original research and it is also sort of a textbook thing. Comments on what could be done with this pretty strange article.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps biogenic phenols might be a better title. I don't like the title, because it seems to be associated with the strange "natural=harmless and beneficial" ideology. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike defining and categorizing natural/unnatural chemicals as distinct. I'm not sure what to do about the article in question, but on a broader topic, I think the whole one-man-show at Wikipedia:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols from User:Nono64/User:NotWith has become increasingly problematic. It is rife with problems with WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, inappropriate categorization, etc. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across the butylated hydroxytoluene article today. Should we categorize BHT as a natural phenol too? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good example of why this categorization isn't meaningful. When this came up before (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_23#Overcategorization_.28again.29), there was consensus to get rid of categories that distinguished between natural and synthetic. Most were deleted then, but several were either missed or recreated. I propose that we empty and delete these categories: Category:Natural phenols, Category:Natural anthraquinones, Category:Natural phenol glycosides, Category:Natural phenol glucuronides, Category:Natural hydroxybenzoic acids. ChemNerd (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find OR, can anyone help me out? There a plenty hits on biophenol so why the N warning (more obscure topics exist)? You will always have people who over-categorize articles, not a big deal. I know we are good at scaring away the newcomers who add material (as opposed of course to newcomers who delete stuff) but this is getting outrageous V8rik (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In my reference to notability, I was thinking of the ever-growing collection of articles on "natural phenols" (such as Granatin A, just to pick one) which are hardly mentioned in the scientific literature and less, or not at all, in secondary sources. See Category:Natural phenol stubs. I'm happy to see new chemistry-related content and our editors' interest in expanding and improving it, but I'm concerned that we're accumulating something akin to "cruft" in this particular area based more on one person's intense interest, rather than on what's useful/meaningful to Wikipedia's readers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

agree, articles like Granatin A have no merit. An alternative is to collect information on this type of compound in an article like biophenol V8rik (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles like natural phenol seem poorly defined and narrowly executed. It could give the naive reader a poor perspective on a topic. Also there is a problem with curation. Knowledgeable editors shy away from weakly conceived articles (67 references, almost all primary, and beginning with a Hungarian botanical journal). The article and many contributions - all well intentioned, I am sure - from the same editor are too narrow for Wikipedia, IMHO. Its not a crisis, and maybe some of us - V8rik? - will help upgrade this article.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)