Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Active discussions
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Project-class)
This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

(2 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Notability of compoundsEdit

This might be better for WP:MEDICINE, but: is there a general standard besides GNG for the notability of compounds, e.g., diphenyl-2-pyridylmethane, which I just found doing CAT:NN cleanup? Articles like this seem useful but I doubt that the majority of them have WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing how our community answers questions like this. On the specific compound, there are several refs in Pubchem, including the fact that there is an EU REACH record, implying that it is manufactured at reasonable scale (enough that some supplier is prepared to pay for the registration). So for this specific compound I think that the problem is that WP hasn't expanded the article, rather than that there wouldn't be WP:SIGCOV if we looked for it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A quick search reveals more than on paper on the topic, and that the chemical is listed for sale. So I have remove the notability in question tag. A PubChem or ChemSpider listing does nothing to prove notability. But the references they link to might. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I was interested by a couple of references I came across for diphenyl-2-pyridylmethane, so I'm going to take a stab at expanding the article over the next couple of days. I still don't know how we tackle the wider question, although I know that Graeme keeps a lists of chemicals he feels have merit as AfC. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  Done So that article now looks a bit better. @AleatoryPonderings: did you come across any others which could be worth expanding now? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: I've just been going through CAT:NN at random to find articles to clean up or nominate for deletion as appropriate, so I haven't encountered any others specifically. But Category:Organic compound stubs seems to have quite a few potential compound articles for expansion. I suppose I was also just wondering in general if we have any WP:SNGs for compounds, as it's clearly a specialist topic to which ordinary guidelines plausibly don't apply. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiswesser's rule and Ionization energyEdit

Hello chemists! I bid y'all a warm hello. I came here today to inform thee of two Wikipedia sites that might be of interest to y'alls'. I've edited both of these pages, but since i am neither a chemist nor a college/graduate student, I came here to ask for your help. The former needs fixing from a chemist, whereas the latter doesn't have a single reference, until i put some. Additionally, the computations in the latter prove too much also for my teeny brain. Please abet me in fixing these pages, fellow wikipedians! Thank you y'all for reading this tedious query. Have a nice day! Wiswesser's rule Ionization energy Ice bear johny (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a chemist, but I cannot find any Google Scholar or Google Books hits for Wiswesser's rule meaning the particular formulation of Klechkovsky's rule that it is. Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I an a chemist and Wisesser's rule and Klechkovsky's rule are both just different names for the concept explained at Aufbau_principle#Madelung_energy_ordering_rule. The Wiswesser rule page should arguably just be a redirect to the main Aufbau principle, unless anyone can find references that suggest otherwise. Incidentally, William Wiswesser is much better known for his notation used to encode chemistry in early databases — a method still occasionally used today. Ionization energy looks like a more technical article that needs extra citations and some simpler language. I hope someone more familiar with the details than I am will volunteer to improve it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that confirms my suspicion. As I mentioned above I cannot find any references to the Aufbau principle aka Klechkovsky rule being referred to under this name, but maybe there are some. I've redirected the Wiswesser's rule page to Aufbau principle as you suggested. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Fine. Seconds before you did the redirect I added a section on the Talk page of the old article that this should be done, so there is a clear record there of our thinking. I think that the reference to his 1945 paper should be added in the history section near Aufbau_principle#Madelung_energy_ordering_rule (I've checked that it is still available) and I'll do that soon. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow y'all are quick to reply! Thanks guys for the trouble :>>>. Ice bear johny (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

But wait, the formula in Wiswesser's rule supports the Aufbau principle? Would you include it in Aufbau principle, or not? Is it inconsequential? I added it in my notes, and thought that it would help. Thank you for answering! Ice bear johny (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

His rule gives the same predictions for the filling of the orbitals as does the Aufbau principle, as was mentioned on the page in question, which is still on WP if you know where to look "namely, here".. As I said, I'll add his paper as a citation in the article on the Aufbau principle and I'll also add it to his biography page, with appropriate detail once I've figured out whether it was really a novel idea in 1945 or just an alternative way of expressing what was already known at the time. Interestingly, his publication does pre-date Klechkovsky's (1960s) but not Madelung's (1930s), although the sources seem to say that Madelung expressed the "rule" empirically, not as in the formulae Wiswesser used. I'll have to read his article carefully to see whether he had a theoretical justification for the rule, which is what Klechkovsky provided, I think. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok. You adding his paper assuages me. Thank you for helping me :>. Your help is greatly appreciated! Ice bear johny (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

More editsEdit

Hello! I would like to request your abetment. You see I am neither a chemist, nor a college student; ergo, i cannot ascertain that the information i input is 100% correct. Hence i beseech your help in the following pages: Ionization Energies, Effective nuclear charge, Core charge and Shielding effect. All of them are under referenced, and other editors that I know are particularly disinterested in editing because of the sheer hard work involved. Thanks y'all! Ice bear johny (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh the shielding effect-. Guys please edit that part. Literally, i cannot describe it's fathomable, facile information! Ice bear johny (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sensitivity of azidoazide azideEdit

The 1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole article cites peer-reviewed sources which describe the compound as extremely sensitive, detonating at the slightest stimulus or for no apparent reason, but it also mentions hobbyists such as I make C2N14 in my shed who synthesized it themselves and found it far less sensitive. Should we include these amateur anecdotes? There's been some off-and-on discussion on the talk page, but it's inconclusive and would benefit from more input. –dlthewave 23:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, assuming of course that you've actually made the right stuff in your shed, rather than something else which explodes somewhat less readily... then polymorphs perhaps? --Project Osprey (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
My chemistry is too rusty to speculate on that, but from a Wikipedia policy perspective we would need secondary-source coverage to A) establish WP:DUE WEIGHT and B) analyze/explain the disparity. –dlthewave 03:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Well you'd need to get the results published in a reputable journal first. Youtube is obviously not a peer-reviewed source. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The location and composition of Group 3 of the periodic tableEdit

Here (open access). About nine months in the making; I only signed off on the (eighth) proof, last night. Sandbh (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Who coined the term "lanthanoid"? wikt:lanthanoid and wikt:lanthanide could do with etymology. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Deprecating usage of the template {{radic}} to write root radicals has an RFC for possible consensus.Edit

"Deprecating usage of the template {{radic}} to write root radicals" has an RfC for possible consensus. I you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Walwal20 talkcontribs 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre AbbatEdit

hi all, just a heads up, Jean-Pierre Abbat who was a chemist(?) is up for deletion, afd is here. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

PT in lead of the PT articleEdit

Now updated: Periodic table
--- Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

R1 PlasmidEdit

How does the R1 Plasmid impact multi-drug antibiotic resistance in its host cell? Vbam25 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How does the R1 Plasmid impact multi-drug antibiotic resistance in its host cell?Edit

9/30/2020 Vbam25 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This sounds more like a microbiology question than a chemistry one. Although it will be reflected in some kind of chemical activity or lack of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Vbam25: I'm afraid I've can't give a good answer to your question. There is a relevant article at R-factor but if that or its references don't help, try posting a specific question again at WP:RD/S. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A quick ping here too: Validation of CAS numbers; collaboration with Wikidata? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lasri condensationEdit

After almost two years of waiting, there still exists no reference in this article proving that "Lasri condensation" is an actual thing (I'm not talking about the chemical reaction, but the term itself). On superficial literature search, I found no paper using the term "Lasri condensation". I have the strong feeling that somebody from Lasri's group is trying to establish this term using Wikipedia. The users contributing to the article and uploading figures are named after former colleagues and PIs of Lasri. The second figure in the article is taken from Lasri's 2018 publication. Lasri himself is refering to the Wikipedia article on his website to suggest that the "Lasri condensation" exists. I suggest renaming this article to something without "Lasri" in it. What does everybody else think? --Hbf878 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless we have WP:SECONDARY source for the name, I strongly oppose using that name for this reaction anywhere in the article, let alone in the title. And for the actual title, we'd further need evidence that it's WP:COMMONNAME rather than COI touting their own work. Is there any secondary ref at all? Otherwise, I suspect it might not even merit an article at all (WP:GNG fail). DMacks (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No secondary sources supporting the term "Lasri condensation", and I cannot find the term anywhere except for pages that are in direct connection with Lasri. What's the common procedure in these cases? Nominate for deletion? --Hbf878 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you think this specific reaction, as defined by whatever specific details, is actually independently notable (regardless of what the article about it would be titled)? DMacks (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really know. It doesn't seem to be revolutionary, as the articles in the references are not cited very much (2x since publication in 2018). Maybe there's someone here who can assess whether this reaction is notable. Btw, there have been discussions about this article and Lasri previously. --Hbf878 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hell's teeth! It is just a special case of a standard pyrazole formation reaction (see first diagram in that article). I'll AFD it immediately. Please add support as soon as I do that. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've put the necessary template on the page and notified the user who created the page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we add new chemistry related wordings and phenomenons?Edit

While reading we come across so many new wordings and phenomena, which was not in wikipedia. How to add this to the page with proper references? Not only chemistry but also every new thing we found? Preethanuj Preethalayam (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some perspectives with your well-intentioned proposal:
  • Of course new info can be added but it should be done in context. If the topic has 2000 hits in SciFinder and is published in a primary journal, I would often challenge the addition. A new review WP:SECONDARY or a new textbook/monograph WP:TERTIARY are among the best edits one could possibly make.
  • Often, editors who want to "help" Wikipedia by adding new references, are engaged in COI. WP:COI. Many newish editors are looking for a way to shoehorn references to themselves, their mentors, or their pals.
  • As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a compendium of digested, mainstream knowledge. Wikipedia-Chem does not aspire to account for the newest results, ordinarily. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Lots of blogs exist if one has the urge to report on new stuff.
My two cents, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to what Smokefoot just said. You can see an example of this as Lasri condensation. Take a look and use your chemical judgement + knowledge of WP to decide whether or not you think it is a good article. If you answer "yes", then I don't think you are ready to create one yourself. For the meantime stick to improving existing articles. If you answer "no" then well done you may well be the sort of editor we want here — the more the better. Check out the part of this page just above at WT:WikiProject_Chemistry#Lasri_condensation, which shows that we sometimes improve WP by chucking stuff out, not always by including more of the same. Again, Welcome! But start slowly, by editing existing chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk)
  • On the more inclusive side, you could propose your ideas for new articles here, and people will respond. In some cases if there is new wording, but nothing else new past what is in the article a redirect may be appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Protic solvent, etc.Edit

I just switched polar solvent to redirect to protic solvent. Protic solvent has sections on polar aprotic solvents and polar protic solvents (slightly redundant?). Would someone else look at protic solvent and make sure that these important links are ok? Do we need to create a self-standing polar solvent? --Smokefoot (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That seems confusing to me...protic is subtype of polar (as you note, polar-protic is semi-redundant) and there's lots to say about polar in general, rather than just as a subtopic of protic. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I was scrambling since prior to my action "polar solvent" was the title, but the lead was all about protic. One alternative solution would be to revert my work and rewrite the lede in the context of polar vs non polar solvents.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Definitely no harm in fixing one mess, even if it can be fixed further or differently later. DMacks (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As it stands today the redirect on polar solvent is very misleading as it leads to an article on protic solvents. So while DMF is certainly polar, it ain't protic. The actual article where the redirect leads has a table where all possibilities: non-polar, polar aprotic and polar protic are discussed, so I think that it is the article title, not the content, that's the problem. Looking at the article solvent, much of the same material is covered in arguably a more general way. So one possibility would be to scrap protic solvent altogether and make all these terms just rediredts to solvent. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the pondering. Following MDT's thinking, one idea is to create Reaction solvent, which might captures the idea that would accommodate aprotic, protic, polar solvent.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Trouble is that virtually all solvents mentioned in the solvent article can be used as reaction solvents. A while ago, I added the reference [1] to that article: this is a tool for solvent selection developed by Astra-Zeneca. So I'm not convinced that a separate article is needed unless one of the subsections at solvent gets so unbalanced in size that it should have a {{Main|Sub-article}} tag, which is not yet the case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok good advice. Lets just follow what the title says, the article will be about protic solvents. Period. Polar solvent will redirect to solvent. Seems straightforward.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Selenenic acidEdit

Changes in article names based on one's ideas of proper or correct nomenclature should be discussed. Such as discussion has been underway on the carboxylic acids. Chemists often call R-S-R thioethers, still. R-Se-O-H are called selenenic acids. Maybe some committee decided that they should be called SeO-Selenoperoxols. Wikipedia is respectful of such committees but we are not necessarily obedient to them. In the end, changes are made by consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And user:Daniblanco renamed the self descriptive Thioselenide to Selenothioperoxide, In my opinion having peroxide in the name is quite misleading as there is no oxygen. However when I look, either name is very seldom used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I invited user:Daniblanco to engage the community here.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sulfhydryl leads to sulfalkyl or sulfaryl, then to sulfalkylselenide or sulfarylselenide for the --Se--S--R part. If invention is allowed, an alkyl (or aryl) sulfalkylselenide or (sulfarylselenide) is better. Or alkylsulfalkylselene -- Ktsquare (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
additional question. Is there a difference between the thia and thio prefix? It seems they are mixed in use: Thiopyrylium, thiabendazole, thiourea, thiosulfate -- Ktsquare (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
From a discussion above, Me-Se-S- Me is called dimethyl selenosulfenate, no? -- Ktsquare (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hexosaminidase#Mechanism of actionEdit

In the right hand figure “H2O” should read “H2O”. In addition, it overlaps with an arrow. Anyone volunteering for fixing or re-drawing? Please note that there is a version with a higher resolution in the file history. --Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Both the files are .jpg and the fix, if done at all, should be to give an .svg version. I'm not very good with .svg editing yet but I'll give it a try. If anyone else fancies doing this, please go ahead as well Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, Leyo, I've   Done the new file, with some additional tweaks to satisfy my chemical instincts. Please check out the result at Hexosaminidase#Mechanism of action and confirm you think it is now fine. Once you've done that, I'll tag the previous .jpg with a note to say there is an .svg replacement. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Convenience links:
* original: File:Mechanism.jpg
* replacement: File:Hydrolysis mechanism.svg
Should the "loss of alcohol" detail (curved reaction-arrow pointint to ROH) actually be associated with the first step rather than the second? The "addition of water" curved-arrow might also want to be moved there...that's the point in the process where the ROH disappears from the image and HOH appears instead. This image is already superior to the original, just some details that can be improved even further now that we have lots of eyes and hands on it. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that the ROH leaves in the first step, so I'll move that portion. The water doesn't arrive until the second step, so I think that part is OK. I'll upload a new version in a while and see what you think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, that seems better. Any further comments? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I looks good now. However, please note that I am not an expert in reaction mechanisms. --Leyo 23:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm always torn how to handle reagents on arrows in a mechanistic diagram. In this case, it's true that the ROH is a reactant in the second step. But in the graphics of the mechanism, it has become present during the first arrow. That is, the true process is "1) H2O is formed; 2) H2O goes away; 3) ROH positions; 4) ROH reacts". Visually [1] is happening in the first mechanism and [1,2,3] happen in order to get from first diagram to second diagram and only [4] is happening to get from second to third. But the way the reaction-arrows are written it's [1,2] as the first vs [3,4] second. DMacks (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
DMacks I'd say it's fine as it is. ROH is not "a reactant in the second step": it has been expelled in the first step — R is in fact the large GM3 ganglioside, as is clear from the other diagram alongside this one in the article. The second step is the hydrolysis of the oxazolinium to release N-acetyl galactose and regenerate the enzyme. The water is shown twice in the diagram: once over the second arrow and also in position under the upper carboxylate ready for its attack on the carbon that will become the anomeric carbon of the N-acetyl galactose. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, yeah, my explanation switched HOH and ROH. Need more coffee, less fume-hood air. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating the template about nitridesEdit

Good day! I really liked the navbox Template:Phosphides that ties together articles about phosphides in parallel to Template:Phosphorus compounds. Since it was missing, I made a similar template about arsenides (Template:Arsenides) which also works in parallel to Template:Arsenic compounds. However, when I tried to update the template about nitrides Template:Nitrides (to make it look like this draft) I was not sure how to proceed. Updating the current version of the nitrides template to make it look like the phosphide and arsenide templates may change it significantly and I don't know whether it will disrupt any of the 300+ pages that link to the template. First, I don't know whether I should update the template. Is it used in some articles? I didn't find it on articles it links to. Second, I don't know how to check whether the update would disrupt the pages linked to it. I would greatly appreciate advice on the matter. --ElMagyar (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to add that extra table with binary, tertiary etc. However the periodic table in the draft, and in the phosphides template is very ugly, being squashed in the middle of the screen. So if you can use the style for the periodic table in your draft and paste it as the next version in the nitrides template. It should not be disruptive if it works! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Newbie question: if I find an interesting new route synthesizing a chemical using wikipedia links, how shall I proceed?Edit

Per title, what shall I do? -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ktsquare There is an "if" in your question which makes it difficult to answer. Please could you give a specific example of an article containing something you find interesting and a suggestion of what it is you want to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
If you look at how the synthesis of adamantane progresses, the breakthrough happens at using dicyclopentadiene, instead of methanal and diethyl malonate condensation. In simple terms, adding hydrogen to a C10H12 and promoting rearrangement make the end product, instead of removing the "branches" from the adamantane skeleton. Can a synthesis just make the parent structure directly in few steps from available compounds? For example only, Wikipedia indicates lignin presents a potential of renewable source of aromatic compounds. Monolignol says paracoumaryl alcohol is found almost exclusively in grasses. Ethenolysis splits an carbon carbon double bond. Cracking_(chemistry) says it breaks down complex hydrocarbons into lighter ones.


  1. Extract P-alcohol from high purity lignin that originally comes from grass or after paper making.
  2. Ethenolysis splits P-alcohol to allyl alcohol and paravinyl phenol.
  3. Cracking splits vinyl phenol to phenol and acetylene.

If possible, all the inorganic salts, carboxylic acid and carboxylate can be skipped altogether. Also, if the cracking in the last step is economical and can be done in large scale, recycling polystyrene can be possible because paravinyl phenol monomer is structurally similar to styrene. In other words, Cracking_(chemistry) make benzene and acetylene from polysytrene waste. hydrogenate some of the acetylene product to ethene to support the ethenolysis in previous step. I know already someone is going to say these are all fantasy from the very beginning... :) --- Ktsquare (talk)

Do you have suitable references to show this works and has been done, or is it your own idea? We do not include WP:Original research. Also if there is only one publication on the topic it my be undue to include that synthesis. We really like things that have appeared in reviews or textbooks, then we have more confidence it is not a mistake or a crackpot idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
So there should be numerous suitable references to show how each step has been done, have I understood the whole reasoning correctly? Just an observation, your use of "we" seems to indicate I am the "you" -- second person in plural, the diction appears to suggest a social distance. -- Ktsquare (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
When I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of people in WikiProject Chemistry. For me personally I am happy to use primary research literature, if it looks reasonable. But others here really like their facts to have appeared in a textbook or review. Another issue is WP:Synthesis (not chemical synthesis), but putting facts together to get a conclusion that no one else has so far reached. But we have it on Wikipedia as original research. If there is at least one suitable reference to show the whole process then the information can be added. If there are numerous suitable references, then you could write a whole article on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I am guessing that you know this already though. for example if we have a reference that says we can make B from A and another references says we can make C from B, then we should not add to the C article that we can make C from A based on that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
How is it possible that you speak on behalf of people in the WPC...Would you not represent yourself? -- Ktsquare (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
See if anyone else here responds! Some will react when something bad happens. But so far I see nothing inappropriate from you. I try to summarise the consensus I see. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The WP:SYNTH policy is a good read. It talks about having to follow refs for what they say as limited by their specific scope, not how any wikipedia editor might be able to string their ideas together in a novel way. It's in keeping with the WP:V policy. Those are two governing policies for content that anyone can write in an article. In discussions among editors on Wikipedia, it's common to use "we" since we (including you) are all potential writers discussing what any one of us might write on this collaborative website, as bound by the WP site policies and guidelines. So for example if there is a ref that "secondary alcohols can be oxidized with Jones reagent to make ketones" we can't say "acetone can be made from isopropanol using Jones reagent" unless we have a ref for using Jones on exactly that structure. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RFC on nonmetal categoriesEdit


I've drafted this RFC at WP:EMEN, here.

I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts re NPOV, coverage, and anything else.

"Moderately active nonmetals" was suggested to me by Peter Nelson after I asked him about "light nonmetals". From speaking with other non-WP chemists, and chemistry teachers, some of them have heard of CHONPS, CHNOPS, and SPONCH. One said, "Yes, I have used CHNOPS for years." @EdChem:, a chemist, is familiar with it too.

The RFC hasn't gone live yet. I intend to run it from the nonmetal talk page.

thank you
--- Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I think there are some issues.
  • NPOV: Presenting the option "other nonmetals" with the comment "meaningless", or commenting simply a link to the literary genre "popular science," appears to me to convey a point of view. There are others where the comments are much more arguments than a balanced / unbiased summary, such as "[i]mplies halogens, noble gases are ≠ nonmetals."
  • The RfC does not mention the metalloids, presumably as they are a separate category. Should this be mentioned? If so, and presuming astatine is classified as a metalloid, is the modification "non-metal" still required after halogen.
  • How should commenters respond if they don't support two or three categories, or don't agree with the ones proposed?
  • What about a "keep the status quo" option?
  • "Depending on the source,[13][14][15][16][17] essential (nonmetal) elements include from 5 to 9 of P; HCNOSCl; F(?)SeI; Si" is confusing to me. I don't understand how any source could not include at least the six elements C, H, O, N, P, and S as essential non-metals given that they are all necessary for amino acids / proteins or RNA / DNA or both. Further, you have listed 11 elements.
  • In Table 3, what is an "anonymous nonmetal"? Is this meant to be anomalous?
EdChem (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks EdChem.

  • NPOV. My comment on the category name e.g. "other nonmetals" was intended to provide a concise snapshot on a possibly relevant consideration. From past discussions at WP:ELEM, nobody likes "other nonmetals" since it doesn't mean anything apart from appearing to treat the subject nonmetals as leftover, forgotten, or orphan nonmetals. Might you have an alternate suggestion for a comment?
  • My comment for the category name "orphan nonmetals" was "popsci". I.e. I found it in a popular science book. While I personally think it's a clever name, I'm less comfortable about relying on a popsci book. Put another way, if I hadn't mentioned this then someone else, no doubt, would've complained about it during the RFC proper.
  • The category name "nonmetals" for HCNOPSSe appears to infer e.g. that the "noble gases" are not nonmetals. Some authors categorise all group 17 elements, using the term "halogens". The nonmetals to the left of the halogens are then categorised as "nonmetals". Does this mean halogens are not nonmetals? I feel this is a relevant consideration.
  • Metalloids. For brevity, the RFC 2-part question doesn't refer to metalloids, as they belong to one of the three "super-categories" of metals; metalloids; and nonmetals. They are however mentioned in the preamble, and in Table 3, for context.
  • We show At as a PTM. Thus, the halogens are composed of four nonmetals, and one metal, where "halogens" is an IUPAC collective name for F–At. It follows that F–I are halogen nonmetals.
  • Alt-editors. Editors who don't support 2, or 3 categories, or who don't agree with the ones proposed could comment in the discussion section. I'll look closer at this. But an RFC should be concise, and I don't want it to be any longer that it already is; the scope creep light is flashing.
  • Status quo is the 2 categories option.
  • Anonymous nonmetals. In table 3, I call them (HCNOPSSe) that as they have no single standout category name in the literature. Since it caused confusion, I'll change it.
  • I suppose the "anomalous nonmetals" might be HHeCNOFNe ^_^

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I will be overhauling the Phosphinidene pageEdit

A 90% completed draft is in my sandbox. I plan to upload my changes within the next few days.

--T2g eg (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@T2g eg: Great project and thank you! Comments:
  • Spare us your calculations. Wiki does publish primary research. Primary research is removed summarily.
  • Try to focus on reviews and books per our guidelines: WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY.
  • details: the great majority of phosphinidine complexes are clusters, if you havent noticed. Perhaps you might relabel your article complexes of terminal phosphinidines. Wikipedia has an article Phosphinidene. Be careful with the word "stable". Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review pageEdit

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


Is this notable? Is this stub WP:OR? Bearian (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I probably can't judge whether it is notable enough, but I want to point out that one of the links in the "Further Reading" section, though currently broken, leads to a Bloomberg article specifically mentionning rhondite (updated link: More secondary and tertiary sources are definitely needed, though. --ElMagyar (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

AFD: Biodegradable athletic footwearEdit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodegradable athletic footwear. I thought this would be automatically entered onto our 'Article alerts' page when I flagged it - but it turns out that it's not assigned to this project, so I'm doing it manually. Opinions are gratefully sought --Project Osprey (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Periodic table has an RFCEdit


Periodic table has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Chemistry".