Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leyo (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 11 January 2024 (→‎Discussion at 1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
    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

    (3 more...)

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (48 more...)

    radius of F- compared to F

    I read here Covalent radius of fluorine, that "When F becomes F−, it gains one electron but has the same number of protons, meaning the attraction of the protons to the electrons is weaker, and the radius is larger." This is not correct. The electrons are not bunched together. The force between the nucleus and any single electron would be the same unless the radius were made larger for some other reason. The electric force is not shared out among the electrons present. 2603:8080:CE00:6800:A0E1:CC79:C0C3:1801 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The radius is larger because of the greater repulsion between the electrons. Bduke (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    History template help

    I recently created the Template:History of physics which has helped to revise and navigate better in between history articles related to physics (and I am working on Draft:Template:History of mathematics). I started a Draft:Template:History of chemistry, however I am not sure I got every history article there is, and some topics could be grouped together as in Template:History of physics. To be precise I am only adding links to articles that are mainly about history (usually titled "History of", "Timeline of", "Chronology of"). I am not adding articles that have a history section like Physical chemistry. Seeing how few articles there are, maybe it is too soon to make this template. Any suggestions? ReyHahn (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ionic state

    I noticed that in Glyphosate#Chemistry, there is the red link Ionic states. What would be the most appropriate article to link to instead? Or should we rather create a new redirect? Leyo 13:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say Ion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE, I'd leave it with "ionic states" unlinked. There is already a link to zwitterion which is the most relevant one for glyphosate's state in aqueous solution. Jo-Jo Eumerus is correct that "Ionic state" could be created as a redirect to "Ion" but I'd still leave it out for glyphosate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the responses. I thought Dissociation (chemistry) might also be a possible link target. --Leyo 15:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyanimide

    I cannot find a coherent topic for this article. Some papers distinguish between cyanimides and cyanamides, while others use it to refer to cyanamides only, or to the parent compound. The sole reference in the article seems to use the term to describe a carbodiimide metal complex, and contrasts with a cyanamide used to synthesize it. The parent carbodiimide is a tautomer of the parent cyanamide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not familiar with the term cyanimide. The simplest compound of that type, according to our article cyanimide, would be the dimethyl derivative but Chemspider calls this dimethylcyanamide, which I agree with. Chemspider has no hit for "cyanimide", although that's not definitive. Pubchem gives just one hit for "cyanimide", which is a synonym for N-cyanoformamide. The article cyanimide only cites one source and should be WP:PRODded, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Otherwise, this will be taken to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ref cited in the cyanimide article does not contain the string "cyanimide". Instead, it is "cyanoimide". I see a few lit-hits for that term. I removed the ref from the article, and I agree that article-deletion is the correct course here (AFD if PROD fails). DMacks (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyanimides appears to be >C=N-C≡N or H2C=N-C≡N.[1] But most references just seem to have it as an error for cyanamide.
    Acetamiprid would appear to match that description. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaundryPizza03 It has been de-prodded by User:Kvng. AfD? Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanimide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    1. ^ Carrau, Reyes; Freire, Raimundo; Hernández, Rosendo; Suárez, Ernesto (1986). "Dehydrogenation of Cyanamides. An Approach to Cyanimides and Carbonyl Compounds". Synthesis. 1986 (12): 1055–1058. doi:10.1055/s-1986-31874.

    Comparison of chemistry and physics

    Does Comparison of chemistry and physics work as an article? It reads more like an essay to me. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. It's surprising to see that the article exists for twelve years already. --Leyo 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that the article was moved to Relationship between chemistry and physics. Do we need to keep the old name as a redirect? --Leyo 08:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Introduction to the heaviest elements

    I started a conversation about Introduction to the heaviest elements and its relevance at WT:Physics. It does not seem like a proper introductory topic article. However it seems to serve as a filler for many articles (transclusion) of heavy elements (e.g. bohrium). What is the policiy on this? ReyHahn (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ReyHahn: reads like an essay. Wikipedia is not a forum for free-form essay writing More to my point: Wikipedia presents knowledge, we do not aim to write textbooks or our personal views on a field. All editors are always writing "introduction to ..." That basically is all we do, introduce. My advice, merge uniquely fact-based aspects of your essay into Heavy elements. Otherwise, do you really want all editors to write "introduction to [your field here]? --Smokefoot (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smokefoot It wasn't ReyHahn's creation but mainly that of User:R8R. The policy is WP:NOTESSAY but I have no opinion on that particular article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smokefoot: Sorry if I did not explain myself correctly it is not my essay it's been there for a while. The question is what to do with it?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    merge it with something else. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But merge it where? It is transcluded in 20 elements articles.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All these articles have gone through good article review, so I'm sure this will have been discussed before. However, the two featured articles, plutonium and californium don't include the excerpt. The normal place for this sort of issue to be discussed by chemists is at WT:WikiProject Elements and I'm sure our active editors such as User:Double sharp will want to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed here, back when R8R and I were bringing hassium (108) to FA. The reason Pu (94) and Cf (98) don't have it is that it's only relevant for element 102 (nobelium) onward, where the only way to produce them is heavy-ion bombardment – including the featured articles dubnium (105), hassium (108), nihonium (113), tennessine (117), and oganesson (118). (Lighter transuranics are simply produced by neutron or alpha-particle irradiation and don't face as much difficulty.) The reason why this is transcluded everywhere is because these elements don't exist in nature and have to be produced in this rather niche way, that we can't reasonably expect the average reader to know; on the other hand, a summary would be pretty much the same for everything from 102 onward. Repeatedly transcluding the same text seemed a reasonable way forward in this case (I am pretty sure there must be other examples in WP, but can't think of them at the moment). Double sharp (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this question at WT:PHY before posting it here. Their suggestion seems reasonable, to merge Introduction to the heaviest elements into Superheavy elements#Introduction and transclude that section.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--ReyHahn (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Percy Lavon Julian

    Percy Lavon Julian has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 08:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Weidel's Reaction?

    On the page for Hugo Weidel, it mentions that he invented Weidel's reaction. However, there is no article for Weidel's reaction, and I wasn't able to find anything online about the topic. Is anyone in this Wikiproject familiar with it? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a colorimetric test based on using ammonia to form a murexide. I've found a bunch of old literature that uses it to prove certain chemicals are/aren't present but not an actual ref for the test itself. DMacks (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps German-language sources say something about it? This book might have one; since it seems to be out of copyright I'll see if one can get a copy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The extensive obituary at Zenodo (cited in the article) doesn't seem to mention a test like DMacks found but it does have a complete list of Weidel's publications that may give someone some clues: I don't see anything obvious. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like at least this is now public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's use of halogen-water followed by ammonia, distinguished from the murexide test that instead uses nitric acid, based on:
    which cites
    • F. Gowland Hophins, in Schäfer's "Physiology"
    Here is a procedure for these two related tests:
    "(d) Xanthine test.—Dissolve the residue or half of it in nitric acid and evaporate cautiously to dryness on a crucible cover over a small flame. A lemon-yellow residue results, which becomes intensely red on moistening with caustic soda, and on further heating purplishred. Add a few drops of water and warm; a yellow solution results, which again gives a red residue on evaporation (distinction from the murexide reaction for uric acid).
    "(e) The so-called Weidel's reaction.—Dissolve half of the xanthine obtained in bromine water, warming gently, evaporate the solution on the water-bath to dryness, and invert the dish over another which contains some ammonia. The residue becomes red."
    from
    and that ref cites "Salkowski" (don't have time to track that one deeper). DMacks (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    UBC is nearing semester's end

    In a few days, editors might take a look at the many articles being revised by students at UBC. A lot of their work seems unsupervised, and it appears that the instructors evaluate these assignment based on number of words (vs quality). Some content seems to cross the line with regards to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK at least. It looks like they are winding down for the semester. A good place to start is organic synthesis. Is organic synthesis really about reflux condensers or is it about, well, synthesis? --Smokefoot (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The version at the end of June this year was dreadful. The current version is still poor but an improvement. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to cover such a large topic in a single article but I guess we shouldn't stop others from trying. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Foul-smelling chemicals

    This category has been nominated for deletion. Any comments here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_29#Category:Foul-smelling_chemicals Meodipt (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Additions requested to X-ray crystallography and Crystallography

    I have done some work on both of these, mainly removing fluff from X-ray crystallography and some cleaning of Crystallography. Both need significantly more work, and there are topic (e.g. macromolecular crystallography) where I don't know enough. I would appreciate the addition of sources and useful edits on the pages; comments OK but useful edits are better. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Liquid crystal

    Liquid crystal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeclared AI content

    The newly added article CHNOPS appears to me to be mostly or entirely generated by an AI chatbot, based on it's consistently flat tone, impeccable grammar and organization, bizarre mixture of vague generalities with potent and tightly worded sentences, odd lapses of logic, and sophisticated associations and vocabulary not characteristic of a student editor. I can't find it lifted from the web but can generate eerily similar article sections by prompting ChatGPT 4.0 to write them simply by asking for an emphasis on astrochemistry. I had intended to simply improve it without prejudice about its source, but found it intensely frustrating and disorienting to try to verify the claims with the cited sources, so I am done trying. I would just delete it but don't want jump the gun if there is a better process that would document it and help prevent more of it. Do others agree that it is probable undeclared AI content, and what is an appropriate course of action? –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have looked a quite a few that would be from the same class. CHON also describes some of the same and has a redirect: CHONPS. I will take a closer look at what I reviewed in the last days and comment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other things from the same class ( University_of_Washington/ASTBIO_502_Astrobiology_Special_Topics_-Origin_Of_Life_(Autumn_2023)): Cyanosulfidic prebiotic synthesis, The Polyelectrolyte Theory of the Gene, Proto-metabolism, Warm little pond, Stellar influences on an origin of life setting.. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of all article edited: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_Washington/ASTBIO_502_Astrobiology_Special_Topics_-Origin_Of_Life_(Autumn_2023)/articles/edited? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Graeme Bartlett. There is also discussion of recent edits to CHON and CHNOPS at User talk:Drmies#Something_wrong_here?. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantum Computational Chemistry Page Permission

    Hi there,

    Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could create a new page called Quantum Computational Chemistry within this Wikiproject.This would entail moving the section titled "Quantum Computational Chemistry" in Computational Chemistry to it's own page then adding a subsection to Methods called Quantum Computational Chemistry. I would then proceed to create a brief abstract about quantum computational chemistry in the methods sections.


    Please find the page moved in draft mode:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erdabravest/Quantum_Computational_Chemistry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdabravest (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Regards Erdabravest2001 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds OK, but it should be titled Quantum computational chemistry Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article (a better word than the wider concept of "page") computational chemistry already contains the word "quantum" 34 times in its body text and uses the template {{main}} in several places to link to more specialist sub-articles. You will need to be careful that you are not duplicating these. On the other hand, your draft looks to be very well referenced and up-to-date. If I were you I'd be somewhat WP:CAUTIOUS: the current article has 171 page watchers and many won't be members of this WikiProject. I see that you are currently in a discussion on its Talk Page about a GA review and I think that you should use that to get feedback on the final structure of the linked articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .... P.S. No-one requires permission to write articles: Wikipedia's core principle "be bold" is part of the reason for its success. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In parallel with the above encouragement, some guidelines to bear in mind:
    • WP:TERTIARY: an article on a really important topic will cite modern comprehensive textbooks, the bibles of the field.
    • WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, even though Wikipedia is an educational tool, the aim is to present facts, not explain them.
    • dont cite yourself or your pals, WP:COI, sorta obvious/ridiculous, but many new contributors engage in self-citation, etc.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the relationship between the User:Erdabravest2001 and User:Erdabravest accounts? DMacks (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that User:Erdabravest2001 is a school-associated account and User:Erdabravest is intended to be separate, according to a reply on Talk:Computational_chemistry/GA2. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 15:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks for finding that. No behavioral concerns to my eye either, just was getting confused at first glance. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there,
    Yeah, exactly. The difference between Erdabravest2001 and Erdabravest is that Erdabravest2001 was created as part of WikiEdu. Erdabravest was created to ensure I could continue contributing to Wikipedia. Erdabravest (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at 1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene#Requested move 4 January 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, the outcome was not moved, i.e., en.wikipedia (as opposed to de.wikipedia) will not strive towards typographical accuracy and will remain messy in this sense. --Leyo 14:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Timeline of chemical element discoveries#Requested move 10 January 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of chemical element discoveries#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense留とめ 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=1194939477"