Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemicals and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Chemicals was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 15 October 2012. |
Archives: | |
A-list discussions · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Requested move for Alpha hydroxy acid
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has requested for Alpha hydroxy acid to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Alpha hydroxy acid, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).
Category:Trinitrotoluene has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Trinitrotoluene has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Olympiadane
[edit]If anyone is looking to get a WP:DYK under their belt, then may I present to you Olympiadane. It needs work but it could be gotten ready in time for the Paris Olympics Project Osprey (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
MOS:MAINISOTOPE
[edit]What's the status of the discussion on MOS:MAINISOTOPE? It got archived without any box closing it. In [1] I assumed the discussion was inconclusive. 184.147.229.55 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking for something to do? Try PFAS
[edit]As many know, C6-C10 perfluorinated carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids are in the news. They are "everywhere chemicals". One can be sure that these articles are consulted often. Here is the hierarchy of that set of articles (people are welcome to edit this list).
- Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 158 kbyte (241 refs)
- Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids 7.6
- Perfluoropropionic acid 4.8
- Perfluorobutanoic acid 5.6
- Perfluorooctanoic acid 129
- Perfluorononanoic acid 18
- Perfluorodecanoic acid 25
- FRD-903 5.7 (a branched PFAS)
- Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids 7.6
- Perfluorosulfonic acids 4.6
- Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid 2
- Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 9
- Nonaflate 1 (perfluorobutanesulfonate)
- Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 19
- Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 54
- Perfluoro(4-ethylcyclohexane)sulfonic acid 3
- Perfluorosulfonic acids 4.6
These articles cover semi-complicated chemistry plus extensive health claims plus regulatory issues (often too US-focused, it seems) plus a dash of scare talk. A core issue is that PFAS might be everywhere, but in very low concentrations, and toxicity vs concentration correlations are challenging.
One also can imagine that many of these articles are an accretion of years of editing with no chopping. Maybe somehow we should try to shunt readers to PFAS, the master and make the others just simple discussions of the basic chem of that compound (kinda straightforward). My point is that PFAS would benefit from some serious editing. To some extent the article is overwhelmed with references, which might detract. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely a topic worthy of improvement, but it's a big job. Even the main PFAS article isn't in great shape (to my eyes at least) - for a page about chemicals there's little discussion of the chemistry: how it's made, or what it goes into, or why. The use of PFAS as a processing aid in blown film extrusion isn't mentioned at all, despite that often being a food contact material. Structure searching shows that we have 637 pages with a -CF2- group, 532 with -CF3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey (talk • contribs)
- While I agree that some of these articles would merit improvements including shortening and better refs (e.g. Perfluorodecanoic acid), I strongly oppose the proposal. While PFASs share some common properties, such as the persistence of the perfluoroalkyl moiety, the universe of PFASs spans from gases to polymers, from surfactants to plant protection products and pharmaceuticals. They are also very different in terms of regulatory, health and environmental aspects. Would you also propose a similar strategy for alkanes, alcohols or PAHs?
- Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances can provide an overview also on regulatory, health or environmental aspects, but substance-specific information need to be kept in the individual articles.
- BTW: Here and here you propose to "proposed to be stripped of most regulatory, health, environmental aspects". However, several of the listed chemicals (e.g. Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid, Perfluoropropionic acid, ) do contain no or little such information. --Leyo 23:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I was thinking of a process aimed at helping readers by unifying info into a reliable source. My impression is that the main public concerns for "everywhere chemicals" are not about gases or polymers. My impression also is that the persistence and regulatory issues mainly pertain to C8-ish carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids. But have it your way, dude. Status quo.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Dark mode
[edit]B/W structural formulas are hardly visible in the dark mode, e.g. in Propane. Is this issue only with me? 162.23.30.48 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's everywhere. I can't see a simple site wide solution, other than switching back to light mode. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/PropaneFull.png/220px-PropaneFull.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/PropaneFull.png/220px-PropaneFull.png)
- "class=skin-invert-image" could help => test using dark mode 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some infobox images with transparent background get automatic white background but others do not. In propane, the skeletal is fine but the other three are not. In that infobox, it's a difference of SVG (handled reasonably: skeletal) vs PNG (bad result: explicit, ball&stick, vdW). But it seems neither specific to chembox nor generally differential for these file-formats. At glucose, some PNG with transparent-bg in other article sections look good and others bad. Caveat: I'm using
?withgadget=dark-mode
to test based on the gadget using a non-darkmode browser, not the 'real' dark-mode. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- The issue might be resolved by adding "class=skin-invert-image" to Template:Chembox. 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some infobox images with transparent background get automatic white background but others do not. In propane, the skeletal is fine but the other three are not. In that infobox, it's a difference of SVG (handled reasonably: skeletal) vs PNG (bad result: explicit, ball&stick, vdW). But it seems neither specific to chembox nor generally differential for these file-formats. At glucose, some PNG with transparent-bg in other article sections look good and others bad. Caveat: I'm using
- "class=skin-invert-image" could help => test using dark mode 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess if your not a chemist...CDCl3 doesnt work
[edit]@Solomonfromfinland: We chemists call deuterated chloroform CDCl3. So do the journals we publish in German, British, US, Canadian. Just saying. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted the edits. Even under a legalistic reading of the Red Book, it is clearly stated that D and T for deuterium and tritium "may be" used. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds
[edit]Hi all; I've been looking into the possibility of writing an article for potassium hypobromite, in an attempt to develop the coverage of salts containing bromine oxyanions, (in this case hypobromite), as more of these seem to have been studied besides sodium. I came across this source, Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds, [2], which seemed as if it could possibly help in writing about other salts, namely for calcium hypobromite among possibly others in the future. This would not be the only source used, as there'd naturally be others, but I ask mainly: is this source reliable?
I ask because this source was brought up during deletion discussions at WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium chlorate and WP:Articles for deletion/Beryllium sulfite. I have no interest in writing about beryllium compounds fwiw, and these deletions were sound. The Encyclopedia of Alkaline Earth Compounds correctly identifies that "No article on beryllium sulfite can be found in scientific literature". However, Graeme Bartlett identified an issue with its coverage of "beryllium chlorate", which it referred to as a chlorite, and discusses it as a hydroxy compound. So I wanted to seek clarification about how useful it would be as a source. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I consider "Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds" as unreliable. Over the years I have seen dubious content or completely incorrect statements from it used as references here. Since it claims to be a textbook, it should be based on other references, even if they are not stated within. So check if they exist, particularly in German (Hypobromit). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- de.wp seems to be lacking in the development of de:Hypobromit. For the set of compounds I've been looking at, I've been able to find sources beyond just Ropp's Encyclopedia: [3] and others for potassium, [4] and others for calcium. I was just seeing whether this encyclopedia should be used for any referencing purposes, which I believe your answer is to avoid this one, which I shall. Is there anything redeemable from it or is it all caput? Utopes (talk / cont) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I question whether many hypobromites (or in fact many other bromine oxyanions) would meet our notability criteria, meaning that you could find many quality first-world references, much less authoritative reviews. If you are looking for some project, I suspect that some topics could be suggested.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most/nearly all are not practical for articles, as the set is highly unstable. There are some which have been the subject of quality sources, which is where my focus will be specifically. From the information I've found, 4 hypobromites and 2 bromites seem to be feasible for articles. (Non-exhaustive, but I only looked at potassium, calcium, strontium, and barium, de:Bariumbromit being one). My main query here was whether or not to make note of Ropp in the refs, and I'm now seeing that this ref should not be included anywhere. It seems to be scrubbed across all of Wikipedia: page history shows the ref deleted from articles to combat citogenesis such as [5], so I'll avoid as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I question whether many hypobromites (or in fact many other bromine oxyanions) would meet our notability criteria, meaning that you could find many quality first-world references, much less authoritative reviews. If you are looking for some project, I suspect that some topics could be suggested.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- de.wp seems to be lacking in the development of de:Hypobromit. For the set of compounds I've been looking at, I've been able to find sources beyond just Ropp's Encyclopedia: [3] and others for potassium, [4] and others for calcium. I was just seeing whether this encyclopedia should be used for any referencing purposes, which I believe your answer is to avoid this one, which I shall. Is there anything redeemable from it or is it all caput? Utopes (talk / cont) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)