Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2007

message: 2-chloropropanoic acid needs some help to get a stub!--Stone 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New page

message: There are quite some chemicals in the wikipedia which have an  tag.  Personally, I believe that this is a right tag at the moment, besides being a stub, the articles state no importance whatsoever (the importance template states: "This article lacks information on the notability (importance) of the subject matter."), and some may indeed not be notable.  A couple of days ago the tags were replaced by a  (and something similar has happened earlier, months ago).  This expand-tag is in my eyes an almost superfluous tag anyway, expansion is inherent to the wikipedia.  Moreover, the articles are stubs, hence are already tagged for expansion and changing the tags does not make the backlog smaller.  I have reverted those.  Now this afternoon someone has replaced three importance tags with  (see talk page of samarium, relating to samarium(III) fluoride, samarium(II) chloride and samarium(III) oxide), which also does not make sense.  Now I do concur, these articles are notable (so most are not ready for an AfD, and the non-notability is maybe not a good category) and they have been tagged quite long (months, and people want to get rid of the back-log on the non-notability).
Do we consider other options?  I can make three suggestions:
# Remove the , ignoring the fact that the articles don't tell anything.
# Replacing the  with a new tag, , where the articles get pulled out of the normal non-notability cat, but put into a non-notability in chemistry tag.
# Replacing the  with an -tag, which can also be supplied to a chemistry related subject.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.  Cheers.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need option 3.  It would take all of us many, many hours of our time to research each of these compounds to provide citable information on their importance.  For any one of the compounds you mention, I know that a CAS search would give you a list of papers on these compounds, but these all take valuable time and effort.  Option 3 would send the right message, IMHO, that these compounds are notable, but they are obscure enough to require a chemist and some powerful resources to show that.  Incidentally, my ever edit was to create a samarium halide page, since I use it in my research (as shown in the picture) and Sm is my favourite element - so I'm not impartial with these examples! Walkerma 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see an old suggestion of mine, which seems relevant in this case.  Walkerma 18:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways, yes, option 2 is best for the reasons you state.  My concern with it is that it would simply put the articles in a subcategory of the main  one, which might still be hit by the deletionists.  But maybe if the template were written so as to say "The importance needs to be verified by an expert in chemistry" or some such thing, then I would support it.  Walkerma 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should a deletionist who doesn't participate in this project be alowed to "hit" these articles? These people have no clue. If a chemical article has - a structure image, the name, few "database" id-s and have been added to any of the chemistry categories - then it should not be labeled at all because this is the minimum information it must have to exist here. The "importance" tag is something that is so subjective. -- Boris 11:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles don't state any importance, hence, they have an importance tag.  They may be non-notable if they do not state why they are important, but probably are notable enough.  We just haven't come around to do something about it (there is a lot of work to be done, anyway).  But indeed the question is, should people not participating in a chemicals/chemistry project be assessing these articles/changing maintenance tags.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Belay that, I am not reverting, but checking.  Still, proposals?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: By the way, why haven't all aricles been put in a semi-protected "unregistered-vandal"-save mode by the sysops we have here? Aren't you guys tired of doing reverts instead of spending more time with editing and improving? Don't you feel like we gotta do something about it? I mean, if all the participants in a project decide to protect its pages they should be allowed to do that with the help of their sysops, shouldn't they?
* Oppose. Protecting is not a solution, I vote strongly against that, I may be tired of reverts, but the power of a wikipedia is that everybody can edit.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everybody"" means vandals too, or a bunch of high-school kids who don't know jack about the matter anyway.?!? If that's not a good solution maybe you have a better one, well let us hear it then or you have none. "Everybody" for me are those that have the knowledge and are willing to help, and these are the "everybody"s that are going to come over here and some small a$$ registration/"log in" proces isn't goint to stop them from editing, actually it is going to have the oposite effect - when people are asked to log in so they can edit they feel secure that their work will not be damaged and it's protected. How are we suposed to attract good editors? How many people in their right mind after working for hours in the lab, the office, the production floor dealing with all kinds of sh1t are going to sit here and enjoy putting some work in a hope that they are contributing to the comunity only to see later that some bozo has "f"-ed it up. Well one can say - How hard is to revert? - just click on the link for the last good revision in the edition history then save it and it's done. Yeah that was easy in those days, when Wikipedia popularity was skyrocketing, because there were so many people working here. Now so many of them are gone and only the hardcore editors, many of them anti-vandal patrol troops are left plus few "lost" enthusiastic souls and it's so hard to keep everything in order - articles that before were reverted in matter of minutes now it takes hours even days to get them back fixed. Meanwhile a bot passes by (adds a link or category, fixes some spelling), or it could be a good unregistered user unaware for the damage, and their revisions override the vandal act in "my watchlist" history so now its no more a click away and we have to backtrack. And the result is - most of the edits don't improve anything (because we don't have time actually to do that) they are just vandal-antivandal ping-pong.If some articles can be "semi-" or even "fully" protected why others can't be? How hypocritical is this "everybody can edit" then?Beetstra, you are a hard working man i didn't post becasue i want to argue with you or any of the regulars. All i want is that we find a solution to improve the current situation in our Project, which if it works can be used by the other projects. Now i'm going back to work. If you don't have anything to say that can make that happen then don't waste your breath. Peace. -- Boris 13:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I am not going to go into a fight.  I just don't believe it will help.  semi-protection means that only registered users can edit, the trouble here is, that I see more and more registered vandals coming up lately.  People apparently already know that IP's will be blocked too quick.  Full protection blocks editing from everybody, which results in me not being able to improve articles anymore (ok, at least I don't have to revert anything as well).  So then wikipedia would have to define usergroups, people within a usergroup have to be allowed to edit a certain group of articles, others will have to apply for access, and in that case, the whole system of wikipedia does not work anymore.  I am regularly seeing conversations by Tim, Brion, Rob, and others on #mediawiki, and they are very much against that type of control.  So, although basically a good idea, it simply is very hard to control or to run properly.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this article, Who Writes Wikipedia, should be helpful. A quote, somewhere 1/3 down: 
Wales seems to think that the vast majority of users are just doing the first two (vandalizing or contributing small fixes) while the core group of Wikipedians writes the actual bulk of the article. But that's not at all what I found. Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account. --Rifleman 82 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many problems with this idea, see Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users for a rather PoV ;P rebuttal. I would also note that about four months ago, I was shouting over the roof-tops that WP had more registered users than articles: since then, it has been much harder to get the stats on registered users... My own view is that the idea would make life any easier: aons do good edits and registered users vandalise (or simply make "bad" edits, which also need correcting). On a pragmatic point of view, no restriction will pass the powers-that-be for the forseeavble future. The best defence against bad editing, and the best help for the people who combat outright vandalism without necessarily being chemists, is to write good articles which are understandable to non-specialists. Physchim62 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting all articles

message: Hi all, I have taken on the ol'  template, as originally designed by PC. To that I added classification, and gave it with more precise text a practical applicability: it now is the WP:CHEMS worklist template, reading that the article is on the worklist of WP:CHEMS, and the classification is non-optional: there is just a limited set of 381 articles, and my personal goal is to have them all listed and rated to start with. Give me a few days. Additional to using this WP:CHEMS worklist template, I also created the pertaining categories, which enables the mathbot to do automatic wikiproject article assessment statistics. As you can see above, the statistics administration had a slight backlog, but that was in general line with the limited progress noted in the articles. And that we didn't have automatic statistics was a shame, as we invented assessment here in WP:CHEMS! (How many recall that?) With all this, I hope to give the WP:CHEMS wikiproject a slight boost into getting at least the target ' >=Start' complete. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of worklist template 

message: Prolinol comes as a stub and this should change!--Stone 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New page of important chiral auxiliary

message: I can neither check the two statments in the article:
It was first prepared in 1912 by the electrolysis of molten NaCl/HF but is now generally made by reacting fluorine gas with 3% aqueous sodium hypochlorite solution
The Hollemann Wiberg states discovery 1930 by Ruff synthesis from the elements. 
Has there anybody a better source? --Stone 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide link for yours? -- Boris 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hollemann Wiberg is a standart iorganic chemistry book and in there is a table of all interhalogenes and it says Ruff 1930. The Ruff paper cited in the article itself does not give any previous synthesis. The Russian Review of Shishkov and that of Booth also states Ruff es discoverer. I will change that part of the article after the weekend.--Stone 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chlorine trifluoride]]

message: The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox (chembox new has been updated, I'd like add their 2c/2p to it).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdiscussion - chembox new

message: Can WPChemicals verify the existence of this? I wasn't especially sure. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find any results in the general databases.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The synonym given in the article, beta-methyl-phenethylamine, is certainly a real compound with CAS# 582-22-9. There are hundreds of references to it in Chemical Abstracts.  Diamondina may be slang for it, but is not listed by Chem Abst as a synonym.  --Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I found results for the b-m-p name but not for Diamondina. RHB Talk - Edits 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the page to beta-methyl-phenethylamine, is surely a better name (but maybe IUPAC-name is even better?).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Diamondina]]

message: Propanoic anhydride Dipropanoylmorphine Isonicotinamide
These pages need a look.--Stone 09:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New pages for Jan-Feb

message: I just wanted to let everyone know about the new "magic word" DEFAULTSORT, if you haven't already heard about it.  Recently I've gone through most of the chemical articles that start with a prefix (such as a number or "alpha-" or "N-", etc.) and changed the categories so that they sort based on the first letter after the prefix.  This required manually adding a sort key to each category.  Now that this job is mostly done, I've found out there is an easier way (d'oh!).  If you add  before the categories, each category will automatically use that sort key.  For an example of its use, see the edit I just made to 1,4,7-Trithiacyclononane.  For more details about how to use it, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting.  --Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New DEFAULTSORT magic word 

message: Hi, if you take a look at this category, you will see it has a huge backlog of chemical components. These articles are mostly stubs that weren't expanded. What do you think of them? Should we try to merge some, or if someone has a sufficient background and wants to expand them to show in which area they can be important... I hope someone will be able to take a look at it :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us are working on it.  Merging is not really possible, they are all individual compounds, all notable (although they do not state that at the moment, hence the  tag.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006]] 

message: I'm copying this conversation over from Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox in order to bring it to a wider audience:
:I'd like to request an additional field for chembox new.  When I get the majority of data that I use to fill a chemical infobox from a single source, I like to put a reference at the top of the box.  See o-Phenylenediamine for an example.  Can a simple field for adding a ref at the top like this be added?  Thanks.  --Ed (Edgar181) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought that was easy, but Cite.php does not work inside a template.  Any other place where I can add that?  Maybe a plain line in the footer? (stating 'source' or something like that?)  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of solved.  Not the nicest way .. it's not clear where you go to with that external link .. but o-Phenylenediamine has now that functionality .. the parameter is 'Reference', to be added in the header of .  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'm happy with the way it turned out (not your fault, of course.)  I'm copying this conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals so others can give input. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In a way, the data in the chemboxes gets referenced by the CASNo (link to eMolecules), PubChem (link to PubChem), and other identifiers.  And the data is not unique to a single reference, it can be obtained from many sources.  Is there need for an extra reference field?  In principle that could fit in the list with the these identifiers (see .  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe it's too ambiguous to put a ref for the whole infobox.  --Ed (Edgar181) 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant!  I have solved the problem.  You can now add, in the top-level of the  a parameter 'Reference' (I am not making it a standard reference).  If you give that parameter the value www.example.org, all works out OK.  So all formatting haas to be done in that parameter, and then it works.  See o-Phenylenediamine!  Thanks, I've learned something new!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a big fan of this reference, but there is a way, so there is no problem in having the support available in the .  For this reason, I have programmed an extra field 'Reference', but that field has to be added by hand, a copy of the chembox from the example on , nor substing  gives this field as a standard.  A wide range of other fields is already available, but since I don't want to encourage overuse of all the fields (create a datapage, chembox new automagically finds the data page, and shows an extra box), you will have to search for it, and see how to enable them.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still one problem in the o-Phenylenediamine, the external link off the CAS# - we saw the same problem we had with the old chembox - look at printing it to see!  We had a strict policy of not allowing external links in chemboxes for that reason (CAS#, PubChem, etc).  Is the new reference field a way to solve this?  I don't want to barge into something where I'm unsure - but we should get rid of that external link.  Remember - most of us editors only look at our articles online, but many people reading the article will want to print it.  Could someone more knowledgable look at that?  Thanks for all the work on this, Dirk and others, Walkerma 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can editors check o-Phenylenediamine to verify that this problem is now fixed. If my solution has really worked, we can modify the other chembox fields which use external links (only Template:Chembox CASNo modified for the moment). Physchim62 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The "print bug" was the main reason why external links were excluded from the chembox, yes. There had also been problems with whole sets of links going dead when an external database changed its structure, but this is solved much more easily with a transcluded template like . I can't remember the question of bias being discussed as such, although I have never been keen on links to MSDS from the chembox for that kind of a reason. Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to the proper databases removes the necessity of a direct link to an MSDS, should I hide that field in the ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in chembox 

message: Lotaustralin, Cobalt nitrate, Magnesium benzoate, Calcium chlorate and Émile Henriot--Stone 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ammonium cerium(IV) sulfate, Timeline of Discoveries in Chemistry, Chemesthesis and Polytype--Stone 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but these are not mine, but new ones I found! --Stone 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NONOate, Neurine, Carthamin some new ones.--Stone 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atomic carbon--Stone 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Bromoanisole, Barium chlorate, 3,3'-Diiodothyronine, Lead(IV) sulfide, N-butylamine, Disodium hydrogen phosphate --Stone 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New pages

message: I would very much appreciate if someone from this WikiProject could look in on the Juice Plus article, to try and head off some edit wars.  There is considerable dispute about how technical the article should be, and whether or not it should do such things as listing all of the ingredients on the product label, and all of the potential side effects.  For example, there is currently a question at Talk:Juice Plus about whether or not "potential harm to an unborn fetus" is a reasonable thing to include in the Wikipedia article, considering that such language is included on a university survey's consent form. I'm not one of the main article editors, but have been trying to help out as a third party.  However, I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia standards in terms of chemicals, drugs, or nutritional supplements, so I'd really like some more experienced editors to pop in.  Thanks in advance for any assistance, Elonka 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance

message: I know a good deal about the uses of Strontium Carbonate, Sulfate, and Nitrate because I work with them frequently, but I don't many useful sources.  The links are as follows.
Strontium carbonate
Strontium sulfate
Strontium nitrate
So far the carbonate article has made the most progress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoyalSoldier (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional info requested for Strontium Compounds 

message: In :Template:NFPA-chembox each template member (NFPA-F1, NFPA-F2, etc)of the NFPA-F/H/O/R families of templates is called with the help of a variable - , , ,  - respectively. For NFPA-F/H/R this is done with , while NFPA-O uses . I think we should use switch for the other 3 as well so we don't send the servers on a search for a nonexistent template as it was happening here. -- Boris 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing that to our attention.  I solved it.  Good point, did not think about the problem that invalid input gets parsed as well (the non-breaking spaces were necessary in an earlier version).  Stupid me .. ;-)  It now only listens to 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4; all other input results in a non-breaking space.  Hope this solved the problem.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be hard on yourself, you have just re-designed chembox new (Very nice!!!) so it's totally O.K. that you have missed something. -- Boris 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not.  There is a smiley after that comment.  Thanks again.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A small note about using variables in the template names

message: The uranium article, rated with High Importance and a WP:VITAL article, is up for peer review in order to get it ready for FAC. Please leave suggestions for improvement at WP:PR#Uranium. Thanks. --mav 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uranium]] peer review 

message: The issue from here has come up again here. I checked the archive and there was support for html only; I support it too with reasons on my talk. Should we put it in the styleguide? --Rifleman 82 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not comment on this last time, I believe html is better, looks better, it works OK, and is easier to understand for people who are not used to mathml.  IMHO, mathml should only be used when there is no clear alternative, which probably boils down to all but the simplest mathematical equations.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TeX/MathML 

message: I would like to join this wikiproject. I was wondering, do I have to check with the current members first? J Hill 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, just sign yourself up (or just make contributions without signing up).  Welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: :: I was wondering if we should add azeotrope data to liquid chemicals. This, however, would be a vast amount of information, but still useful. (for example the boiling point of a mixture of toluene and pyridine or the well-known H2O.toluene azeotrope. Difficult. Sikkema 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that if the data is worth presenting then it is worth a sentence of explanation: some azeotropes are important, but most aren't. Among the important ones, I would include "constant boiling" hydrochloric acid, and the azeotropes of ethanol with both water and benzene... Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  even more data? 

message: Gratulations! Might happen to some other article as well!--Stone 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uranium]] is now a featured 

message: Khellin, Cromone,  Sulfosalicylic acid and Bitterant need some work!--Stone
:I think cromone is a misspelling and should be merged into chromone. I'll merge them in a few days if nobody disagrees.  --Ed (Edgar181) 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pages 

message: There are some disparaging remarks on the talk page for rust about the quality of that article - particularly the chemical processes that cause rusting. It seems to be an article frequently referred to by schoolchildren, so it would be good if an expert could sort it out. I've added the expert template to the article, but thought it was important enough to draw your attention here, too. My interest? I just came across the page while vandal-fighting. Hope this is OK. --Smalljim 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rust 

message: See :Category:Proposed deletion as of 7 March 2007 and Special:Contributions/Diez2. --NE2 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted this also.  I have contested that many times (they are tagged with , not with , but the deletionists still will delete them on sight.  I am giving up on them, I have contested prods, deletions, and other (re)tagging often enough.  I am sorry.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like User:Parker007 removed all the remaining prods.  Also, if anyone is interested, there is also an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesium perchlorate. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I contested the AfD.  Re:Ben: I have been trying to explain wikipedia:WikiProject Notability the difference between  and  (reiterated that at the AfD), but in the deletionist eyes these two tags are the same, and everything that has an importance tag since June 2006 has to go (beware, July 2006 is next!).  The result is now, that the prod ánd the importance tags have been removed, which now results in these articles staying unnoticed, instead of being in a backlog for addition of importance (which may in the end result in importance actually being added ...).  So be it.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I suggested once, and I still am in favour of that.  Deletionists don't get that they should leave that assesment to an appropriate wikiproject, so that would be a good solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have for now reinstated the importance tags, the articles still don't state any importance, so that tag is in place (sorry for the backlog).  Hope to hear more on the plan of our own importance/notability-tags.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bunch of compounds tagged for deletion

message: I would like to suggest a merge of the articles terpene and terpenoid.  I don't think either topic can be discussed without significant overlap with the other.  In many contexts they are even considered synonymous (or at least the terms are used interchangeably.)  It doesn't make sense to me to have separate articles.  That's probably the reason we have the category :Category:Terpenes and terpenoids, rather than separate categories.  Currently, almost the entire contents of the terpenoid article is redundant with terpene, non-mevalonate pathway, and mevalonate pathway so there isn't much value to that article as it stands.  The technical distinction between the two terms (terpenoids are functionalized/modified terpenes) can be fully explained and exemplified in the joint article, perhaps better than it could be in separate articles.  What do you think? --Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked a bit on some of the specific terpene articles, but not on these two general articles.  I agree there is a lot of overlap. I don't have strong views on it either way, but I certainly wouldn't object to a merge, with terpene being the new home for the combined article. Seems reasonable.  Walkerma 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terpene/terpenoid merge? 

message: I have maybe got a bit over excited and changed the scope of this article to be about the family of boranes rather than the transient BH3. Check it out --revert if you like and create an article boranes maybe. I have tweaked the other borane articles to put in the IUPAC names and also redefined organoboranes to apply only to BH3 derivatives, rather than anything with a boron carbon bond. I have also rewritten boride article because it was short and needed improvement. Axiosaurus 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Borane

message: I noticed in the chem info boxes the listing of the "atomic mass" rather than the "atomic weight". This at first appears to be a progressive move away from the now somewhat deprecated "atomic weight"; however atomic weight has been replaced by "relative atomic mass" not "atomic mass". Atomic mass means something different I am not even aware of widespread misuse of the term atomic mass in this manner, although I could imagine it given the shorter term being the less frequently intended. As long as there isn't a long and widespread precedent of misuse and confusion I strongly suggest that we stick to using the terms according to their IUPAC definitions.
Please see the following if you are unaware of the meanings of these terms:
*The IUPAC definition of "relative atomic mass (atomic weight)"
*The IUPAC definition of "atomic mass"
*An IUPAC article in Pure and Applied Chemistry detailing the the reason for this schism and the motivations for the definitions
To summarize: "Atomic weight" was replaced by "relative atomic mass" and "atomic mass" was reserved for individual atoms or nuclides (i.e. not isotopically weighted).
Just trying to make wikipedia more accurate.
--Nick Y. 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheminfo boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight 

message: Hi there WP:CHEMS members. I have just drawn a structure for pentosan polysulfate as requested on that article's Talk page, and would greatly appreciate it if someone could check it for accuracy. It's a bit out of my league, and I wasn't able to find a really authoritative source for the structure, so here is my version: If there are any inaccuracies, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I quickly ask, what software do you draw these molecules with?  --pizza1512 Talk Autograph 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISIS-Draw (MDL) (free for privat use) or ChemDraw or .... many others.--Stone 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure drawing might help also.--Stone 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good freeware - Chemsketch (version 10) google for it! -- Quantockgoblin 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Chemsketch and Inkscape, and recommend both (I really should be watching this page) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Following a previous discussion, I created a new barnstar to be awarded to contributors to the Chemistry and Chemicals wikiproject (or anywhere else. Read about it on the wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New barnstar for Chemistry/Chemicals 

message: Once in a while I go fishing:
Isobutylamine, Sec-butylamine, Tert-butylamine, Gentisic acid, Masking agent, Oligonucleotide synthesis, Group 2 organometallic chemistry, Trimethylarsine, Anilinium chloride, Ketosamine, Aminothiazole, Sodium salicylate, Dimethylbenzylamine, Benzilic acid, Methyl isopropyl ketone, Adipamide, Aminoethylpiperazine, Azo formation, Syringaldehyde, Hydrogenase mimic, Rhodium(II) acetate, Spinosad and most of it needs work!--Stone 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fishing

message: I'm very suspicious about the article metrazine.  At first glance it seems reasonable (except for the last sentence), but the links provided do nothing to support the content of the article.  Pubchem and other chemical databases do not list metrazine as a synonym for heptafluorobutanoic acid.  Google searches turn up nothing, too.  The big red flag for me is that the article originally started out as being about "tetra-cyclo-butanoic acid" but evolved into something different as the sole author edited the article.  I've marked it with a  tag for now, but if someone can verify the article, please remove it.  If nothing supportive turns up, I'll nominate at AFD in day or two.  --Ed (Edgar181) 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phenmetrazine is a drug. I found a few references in google books to "metrazine" in the context of drugs as well, but I'm not sure if it's the same as phenmetrazine or a completely different thing. In any case, I'm pretty sure the metrazine article as it stands is a hoax. --Itub 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Ed! The article is a hoax, undoubtedly. The two sources quoted were plausible, but did not corroborate the information in the article. Metrazine does not appear as a chemical name on the large, free-access databases such as PubChem or ChemSpieder. The last sentence showed a poor knowledge of the chemistry of fluorocarbons, claiming that they decompose into methane under high temperature and pressure. I have speedied the article and blocked the user. Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Itub and Physchim62 for looking into it, and thanks Physchim for deleting and blocking.  --Ed (Edgar181) 11:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Metrazine]] 

message: I have added a lot to the nitride article and destubbed it. I have also added content to lithium nitride, calcium nitride, thallium iodide, gallium trichloride. Could someone take a look please, perhaps some could be destubbed after some editing. Cheers Axiosaurus 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some stubs worked on

message: The original aluminium boride article mixed info relating to two different compounds, aluminium diboride and aluminium dodecaboride, that are referred to as aluminium boride. I have made the original page a disambiguation page and added two new articles that contain the original content appropriately split out along with some new stuff. I am not sure if this is the best solution to the problem, maybe somebody could take a look.
Regarding indium monobromide, could somebody help? The article was started as stub and I have added to it but it  probably should be renamed indium(I) bromide, however I am not sure how to do that. Also a disambiguation page for indium bromide was added previously - I am not sure whether that is correct, perhaps that page should be removed. Axiosaurus 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at it, so should other inorganic chemists because the chemistry of these compounds is fascinating, and as such deserves WP coverage. Thank-you Axiosaurus for bringing this to our attention. The current stubs seem fine, on a quick look, and I have fixed any problems with the disambiguation. We really must have a page on thallium triiodide, perhaps the most interesting of the lot; I take this opportunity to ask editors who have access to inorganic databases to find some original references concerning this compound. It is discussed in both Greenwood&Earnshaw and Cotton&Wilkinson, but without references for the claims. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aluminium boride and indium monobromide

message: Would it be useful to create such a list of a List of Elements by Name. I thought it would be interesting for a student starting to learn chemistry. An example is K for potassium, and then add what the symbol represents (Kalium). Evilclown93 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a list of elements whose symbols are not directly related to their english names?--Nick Y. 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup. Evilclown93 01:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This aspect is already covered at List of elements by symbol, right next to the element name. I don't think it meeds a separate list.  Walkerma 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of elements whose name is not directly related to its symbol 

message: Newly-created article and most likely a hoax. Nothing on PubChem or Google for the article name. "Adaflaxaline" gets two ghits to this conversation on Flickr (check the Comments), so, again, probably a hoax (although some pharmaceutical company should definitely use this name :)
Comments appreciated. I won't list for AfD yet, on the off chance there is actually something here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, check out the image's uploader and this gentleman on Flickr. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a note, the same user created Adaflaxaline as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at AfD. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles are now listed there. :) --Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Both do not show up at SciFinder/ChemAbstracts.  Hoaxes, most likely.  --Ed (Edgar181) 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both deleted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sodium Nitrous Atreyuithol]] 

message: On a random article click, I came across this article. I just added the  tag, as it seems to go into too much depth on Bio-Alcamid®. Anyone want to take a look at it? —Brien ClarkTalk 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polyalkylimide]]

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Chemical compounds and mixtures. I think the compounds are already well covered by WikiProject Chemicals, but I don't know about the mixtures. Examples given include glass, salt, and alloys. --Itub 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar project proposed 

message: A few of us have begun work on X-ray crystallography, which is the Science Collaboration of the Month.  This article will become a Featured Article.   Won't you join in?  I'm sure that we'd all benefit from your insights.  Willow 06:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading towards FAC, hopefully with your help

message: I have added some details regarding pi bonding and anomalous lewis acid strength of the BX3 series. The reason for BF3 being the weakest lewis acid is a common question at high school and above. However I have not just stated the conventional wisdom that "its all due to relative pi bond strength" but have added the reservations expressed by greenwood and added the possibility that donor-B bond strength (which is lowest in BF3 complexes could be a reason. Axiosaurus 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Boron trifluoride]]

message: Greetings. Over the past 4 weeks I have made a project of creating and/or filling out supplemental data pages for various organic solvents. See my sandbox page for a list of supplemental data pages I've worked on so far (there are about half a dozen more volatile compounds I still have plans to do). Besides physical and thermo numbers, I have also been adding vapor pressure tables and plots as well as distillation data for various binary mixtures. What I have neglected to do so far is fill in the IR spectrum data. So to anybody who thinks what I've been doing is a worthwhile endeavor, I'd like to invite you to help out by filling in spectrum data for these data pages. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help with that when I get back home, later this week. You've been doing great work - those data pages have been neglected.  Now they're becoming really useful!  Walkerma 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Volatile compounds project

message: One gets the sense that amyl nitrite is an often consulted article. The article is in okay condition except that somehow a subsection was started on "Popular culture," which has attracted a steadily growing list of where this drug is cited in various novels and films.  The pop section has now been tagged for  Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.  This is a case where the tag may actually be useful - i.e. its recommendation that we either delete the pop culture content or incorporate it into the main body.  The contents of the list would make it difficult to incorporate unless one thinks, for example, that Hannibal Lecter's use of amyl nitrite is noteworthy.  So.... I am checking with folks in the event that others see some way around deleting this content, trivial as it is.--Smokefoot 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps all that trivia stuff can be moved to poppers, where it would seem to be more appropriate. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia and amyl nitrite

message: Just came across what looks like a great article that's gone largely unnoticed… youngvalter 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with a bit of minor cleanup that could be A-Class, I think!  Thanks, I'd never seen it before! Walkerma 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Protonated molecular hydrogen]] 

message: 300px|right|A picture. 1000 words.
For people doing assessments, this javascript tool has now been configured to work with this WikiProject and with the Chemistry WikiProject.  It allows you 
#To add an assessment tag directly from the article-space
#To see any existing assessments
You can hide the scrollbar easily, and then you just see something like "A B-Class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" with no extra lines needed on the screen.  Even if you don't actively do assessments, I think it's nice to see the ratings of the articles you're looking at. Walkerma 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outriggr's assessment tool 

message: I have added some content to this page as CaC2 as it is now such an important industrial chemical worldwide. I have referenced everything I could, however there are a few interesting snippets, e.g. Carbidschieten (Shooting Carbide) still  unreferenced. If anyone has a reference that would be great.Axiosaurus 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calcium carbide

message: This page is about a procedure, not a chemical but has a WP Chem tag on it - can someone remove it? Aaadddaaammm 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I switched it to , which is more appropriate. Walkerma 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And rated Stub/Mid, which is also appropriate, but more subjective of course. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ammonium sulfate precipitation]] 

message: I've proposed a merge, in line with standard practice on combining chemistry, pharmacology, history, and sociology into single articles.  Outside input is welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Poppers]] and [[Alkyl nitrites]] 

message: I added that it is used as a catalyst (and linked to source), and also the boiling point. chem_tom 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erbium(III) chloride 

message: Can anyone help out with stearamidopropyl climethylanine?  I can't find any verification of it.  Details are the in  tag I added (please remove it if my concerns can be addressed).  --Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind ... it's now a stub at stearamidopropyl dimethylamine. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stearamidopropyl climethylanine]] 

message: I have updated the chemical infobox on the 1,1,1-Trichloroethane article from the old style. chem_tom 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

message: User:Memodude has renamed ethylene to ethene because of comments at Talk:Ethene#Title and name. Smokefoot and I put forward arguments against such a move, but the move went ahead regardless.
Because those who supported the move to ethene seem to be non-chemists or students, I thought it would be good to ask here for the opinions of those more experienced in the chemical arts!
I know it's important not to waste too much time faffing around with names when we have redirects and need to focus on content, but I feel WP:CHEMS should have the final say on the names of articles in its custody. Chemists should be in charge of chemistry articles where possible, not amateurs.
Ben 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move was clearly against the naming conventions and there was no consensus and Memodude ignored your request to discuss it at the wikiproject. I suggest reverting it immediately. --Itub 16:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What the heck, I've moved it back myself. --Itub 16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for moving it back.  It certainly shouldn't be moved without consensus.  --Ed (Edgar181) 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethene or ethylene? 

message: I created 1-(2-nitrophenoxy)octane and 3-mercaptopropane-1,2-diol linked from fast atom bombardment. Any input or comments appreciated. Thanks. --Kkmurray 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fast atom bombardment Matrix 

message: Is there any standard program to draw the chemical structures? Or any standard settings? I have been looking around for an answer, but counlnt fined anything about it
ChristianoGh 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking!  The relevant guide is here.  We really need to set up some better navigation tools so people can find these pages! For a molecule editor, ChemDraw is obviously fine, and many people use MDLI IsisDraw or ACD ChemSketch which are both free for educational use.  BKChem and JChemPaint are also popular choices on Wikipedia, as they are both open source and free.  Ask again if you need any help with any of these. Walkerma 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program to draw structures 

message: To place its discovery into the year 1866 is definitly wrong. The Silver acetylide is already described in a publication by Berthelot (doi = 10.1002/jlac.18601160108) in 1860 and there he does not claim it a new component either. The publication stating it (G.-C. Guo, Q.-G. Wang, G.-D. Zhou, T. C. W. Mak (1998)) is simply wrong.--Stone 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim seems unlikely, but I think we should look quite hard at the history given in the acetylene article as well. Early nineteenth century seems more probable to me than mid nineteenth century. Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Silver acetylide]]

message: Just deleted as a copyvio (MSDS copy/paste). Perhaps a rewrite is in order? (hint, hint). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I heard about this compound as I drove to work today. I've put a small stub there. I'll look at it when I am a bit more free. --Rifleman 82 05:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I love stubs about obscure molecules! ;-) I have added a couple of facts I found about it on Google Books. I hope they are not too obscure... --Itub 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, guys. Both quick and excellent work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2,5-dimethylfuran]] 

message: :Cross posted at WT:PHARM.
Any of our medicinally-minded chemists ever heard of this? I haven't, my usual sources turn up nothing, and the drugbox has apparently been copied from heroin. Based on the creator's contributions, I'm thinking of sending it to AfD. Perhaps it was a typo (thinking of diamorphine?) If so, one could argue for a redirect, but it's extremely unlikely that anyone would search for this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would send it to AfD, depending on other comments here and at WP:PHARM. I agree that it is probably a typo, but with this sort of compound it doesn't hurt to have some outside confirmation. Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Diramamorphine" made me immediately think "diamorphine", so a misspelling seems a possibility.  Tomorrow morning I'll be able to do a quick Chem Abstracts search and see if "diramamorphine" turns up anything.  --Ed (Edgar181) 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring any objections (or Ed finding anything :), I'll probably redirect it to heroin. Probably best? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No hits from Chem Abstracts.  Redirecting seems reasonable.  --Ed (Edgar181) 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by  :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Diramamorphine]] 

message: Okay, this is just an idea, but most of the books that I have seen on various chemicals has given information in a table format.
e.g.
Name 	Formula	MP 	BP   	Density
Water	H2O    	0°C	100°C	1000 kg·m-3
This could provide data on chemicals quickly and easily, without requiring users to sort through dozens of pages of articles to get to the data. Would anyone be willing to do this? J Hill 18:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I don't understand but it seems that this is already done just in more of a column than a row.--Nick Y. 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the Wikipedia:Chemical infobox page. (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a few pages like that. They usually have "data table" in the title. For example, see Standard enthalpy change of formation (data table). --Itub 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If that is the intention, it'd probably be better to get a bot to compile the information from our pages (including the supplementary data pages, which may well include triple points) and compile it into one big table.
* We already have the Dictionary of chemical formulas, a bot could expand the tables in this section V8rik 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Opium has been tagged but unassessed for a few months.  It isn't a chemical, but it is a source material for partial synthesis of opiates.  I'm reluctant to remove the tag in case you regard it as a "reagent" or "commodity" worthy of interest, but could someone decide one way or the other?  I'm thinking of nominating Opium for Good Article soon. Mike Serfas 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a quick qnd provisional assesment as B-class Mid-importance for this project, although obviously that might change depending on any comments which other project members wish to make. I will take a more careful and thoughtful look at it this evening (off-wiki) to give editors a more precise idea of any gaps or problems with the article (or maybe to convince myself that it really deserves an A-class, it's a close call to make quickly). Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opium 

message: An article with absolutely no text, except for a table and a figure. Anyone has any idea what this is about? --Itub 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an anabolic steroid. The figure is completely non-standard (and probably inaccurate :), and it could probably use a drugbox (?) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Appears there is some legitimate medical use—I'll see if I can add something to the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Clostebol]] 

message: Peptohydrochloric acid. No results in CAS under any of the three names listed on the page. One or two google books results to old books with no real viewable text available. Google scholar also returns a couple of obscure results for one of the names. Is there really anything substantial ;-) we can say about this topic? --Itub 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest redirecting to this page, but then that's the sort of rouge editors that I am ;) Physchim62 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is likely an example given for instructive purposes.  Pepsin is a protein which can be a neutral molecule at its isoelectric point, but when you put it into the acidic environment of the stomach, it will acquire H+ here and there.  Since the counterion in the stomach is mostly chlorine, I suppose that makes it "peptohydrochloric acid".  But in normal biological literature no one usually pays attention to whether a protein is in a cellular environment that makes it acidic, basic, or neutral, although proteins or domains that are intrinsically acidic or basic (have low or high isoelectric points) are noted as such when the tendency in the sequence is strongly apparent.  As for the article: I'd say to merge it into Pepsin as a short sentence using the phrase.  The term is sourced.  Mike Serfas 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A three-line entry in the 1913 Webster dictionary is not a good source for an encyclopedic article. --Itub 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A dictionary entry isn't a good scientific reference, but it's a very good source to prove that the word was known. Mike Serfas 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the obscure hypothetical chemical award goes to... 

message: Diphenylethandioate is a little bit too much Diphenyl oxalate is the chemical name and also that of IUPAC I think. The Diphenylethandioate is the systematic name. Am I right?--Stone 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a space in the (English) systematic name: diphenyl ethanedioate. Otherwise, you're spot on. Physchim62 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Phenyl oxalate ester]]

message: One of our worklist, carbon dioxide, is this week's article for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.  That means that a variety of Wikipedians will be working on the article.  If you have a bit of time to work on this, it would be great - it's rare that one of our articles garners such attention.  Cheers, Walkerma 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now Martin, you know that our articles consitute about 0.5% of Wikipedia, and so they get attention about 0.5% of the time! Actually, a little bit more than 0.5% of the time, because they tend to be better written than the average Wikipedia article, but that is to our credit. Anyway, I heartly approve the motion that we should all go out and learn someting about CO2 (or English grammar, for example) that we can put in the article! Physchim62 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon dioxide 

message: In the text of vinyl halide it is stated that vinyl halide is any alkene with halide substituent. This means that also e.g. allyl chloride is a vinyl halide. However according to the image, it is not a vinyl halide. Which definition is therefore valid? --Tomaxer 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look up vinyl chloride in the Merck Index, it shows CH2=CHCl. Likewise vinyl bromide is CH2=CHBr. So by generalization it would seem that vinyl halide should be CH2=CHX only, and that allyl chloride is NOT a vinyl halide. The picture, however, shows the halide on one of the unsaturated carbons. This is NOT the case with allyl chloride. Perhaps the words should be qualified at least to indicate that the halide substituent must be on an unsaturated carbon. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also thought that it should be only the case of halogen located directly on an unsaturated carbon. So I'll change it this way. Thanks. --Tomaxer 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vinyl halide]] text vs. picture definiton 

message: This article needs some help really quick!--Stone 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iodoacetate]]

message: Molecular switch, Molecular shuttle, ETN, Johann Gottlieb--Stone 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New pages

message: Hello: I'd appreciate some feedback regarding the inclusion of some kind of in-line disclaimer for the Health and Safety section of the Polyurethane article.
Something along the lines of,
The following information is believed to be reliable and is available elsewhere in the public domain, but is provided with no representations, guarantees, or warranties. Users of polyurethane materials seeking definitive information on the application, use, storage, handling, disposal, and environmental, health and safety considerations should contact directly the product manufacturer.
The hazards of polyurethane raw materials (such as isocyanates and amine catalysts), and those associated with the use of articles manufactured from polyurethane polymer (such as the flammability of HR flexible foam used in furniture applications and foam insulation) are well known. I feel that since this is an encyclopedic article on Polyurethane (polymer), it is important to (re)direct people seeking detailed or authoritative EH&S information to more appropriate sources, such as manufacturers, industry groups, or regulatory bodies.
Best Regards, P Cottontail 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a good idea to provide specific disclaimers on chemistry articles - it would be too difficult to craft individual ones tailored to each article, and putting them on some articles but not others might imply reliability inappropriately.  Wikipedia's site-wide disclaimer (see Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) should cover it.  --Ed (Edgar181) 22:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with putting a disclaimer, based on Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and WP:NOT#HOWTO, plus the slippery slope concern (are we going to put disclaimers in every article about a chemical, weapon, tool, electrical appliance, sport, vehicle, soups that may be hot after heating, etc.?). However, it is certainly possible to direct the reader to a more authoritative source through the use of references. That section of the article currently has none. --Itub 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with adding such info, the general disclaimer should cover that.  Moreover, WP:NOT#GUIDE prohibits inclusion of such advise.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For reference, the official guideline is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, which says exactly the same as the comments above but in a more general context. As a guideline, it is occasionally broken, but I don't think it should be in this case. If you are looking for authoritative references in EH&S, you can do worse than search through the International Chemical Safety Cards: there isn't one on polyurethane as such, but many monomers do have safety cards. Don't forget that the best place for a detailed discussion of hazards of the monomers is on the articles which describe them: the polyurethane article can (and maybe should) have a summary of the information, with links to the other articles where hazards are discussed at more length. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more guidance on this. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EH&S Disclaimer for Polyurethane article 

message: A discussion regarding external links to chemical producers is in progress at Talk:Sodium sulfate. Further input is requested as there is a significant disagreement about commercial links. Vsmith 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producer links - rfc 

message: Greetings from WP:PHARM! Big backlog over at , if any of our other (ahem, ahem) structurally-minded editors would like to help me out here :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten a couple and will do some more later too if necessary.  --Ed (Edgar181) 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on it. Would youlike me to tag all talk pages of all the articles in this category with  and your pharma banner? --Rifleman 82 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you use chem-awb to find all articles that contain  and tag their talk pages with ?  I can't think of any exceptions where this tagging wouldn't be appropriate, so if you can do it I'll ask at the wikiproject and see if there is consensus to do it.  --Ed (Edgar181) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a better way forward than tagging all of these with : we should only tag articles which we think we can take care of (see WP:OWN). Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tagging with  was an excellent idea. I can't believe I hadn't thought of that. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structures needed... 

message: links to emolecules;  links to pubchem;  links to mesh. Can we combine all cas references to a link farm, where a cookie can be generated to save defaults? Something like Special:Booksources? Also useful because some more obscure compounds can't be found on these sites. --Rifleman 82 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like Wikipedia:Chemical sources? --Ed (Edgar181) 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, exactly. But, it's not functioning now is it? In fact, one of the first tasks of user:chem-awb was to mass-remove . --Rifleman 82 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cas number search

message: I have been working on it for a while. I thought that it could help us a bit when making searches for articles about organic compounds, as Wikipedia does not have it or at least i'm not aware if there is one. It is in a very basic form right now and contains only 229 entries but i've been adding new features almost every other weekend (some of them you will find quite familiar) and i will continue to do it, plus i'm constantly adding new entries as well, so nothing is final and there is plenty of room for improvement - for an example a "Search" can be done only for the different identifiers (PubChem, CAS, etc), for a string in the name and synonyms, and for the chemical composition which are all in the "General" tab of the "Search" form - the form opens up after moving the mouse over the "Actions" in the navigation row, and the clicking on "Search" in the pull down menu that pops out.
I hope you find it usefull. Any "how to be improved" feedback would be welcomed.
P.S. It DOES NOT work in Dumxplorer. Once i used to take my time to make the javascript code run on Dumxplorer too but i just got tired of it and now i stubbornly refuse to do it. Opera (I recommend it) and Firefox run it fine. -- Boris 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, thanks!  Others are looking to make Wikipedia data more searchable - one exciting development is a database (DBPedia) being constructed to allow structured queries, and it should include chemistry.  Take a look at User:Petermr's blog entries on how this  relates to chemistry here. It's a community effort, too rather than a commercial enterprise - take a look at DBPedia! Walkerma 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, o_O. I felt like i just woke up after being frozen for 5 years. Sure my site is interesting, let me exagarate once again - it's like visiting a National history museum and looking at the bones of a new disocovered dinosaur. I followed the links to realise that "Resource Description Framework" was the reason for seeing more and more pages with wierd addresses and even pages that display nothing but plain text. "commercial enterprise"? Nah. I've never had this intention. The only reason there is login is to prevent unregistered clowns to change the content the way they do it over here. -- Boris 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organic compounds database

message: Comments about the Ammonia article would be nice.--Stone 11:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article canidate

message: The article on Gramicidin would be a good match for this project.  It is a small peptide antibiotic, but I don't see why that should preclude it from being a "chemical."  What do you think? Jeremiah 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although some may disagree I would agree that it is certainly a "chemical". It is also a peptide, which is a class of chemicals. Sometimes organizational schemes draw artificial lines of little real meaning. Sometimes we need to accept that, but I'm not certain about the artificial lines re chemical on wikipedia.--Nick Y. 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gramicidin 

message: Fatty acid derivates like Oenanthotoxin, Falcarinol and Cicutoxin used by plants as Plant defense against herbivory. The pages are not brand new but upgraded, but need still a look from a native speaker and a biochemist.--Stone 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pages 

message: I've downgraded Ethanol to GA-class.  I've removed and split some wordy and redundant stuff but it has left the "Absolute Alcohol" and "Chemicals Derived from Alcohol" sections extremely sparse. Could somebody help me write introductions for those sections?
Also, I think there's material in the feedstocks section which is still redundant with the "Use --> In Fuel" and the "Controversy" sections.
Isaac 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the wholesale removal of the chemistry section (chemical reactions that ethanol participates in, etc.). Although most of the reaction material is covered in the alcohols article, a brief section on chemistry is still appropriate here, identifying ethanol as a primary alcohol, with the properties inherent in that, and listing briefly the names of the reactions that ethanol participates in. That together with a link to the alcohols article would be sufficient. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've viewedIsaac's changes, and I think they are a step in the right direction. However, I feel a "chemistry" article is still necessary, with a  perhaps, and a brief mention of reactions which ethanol participates in. Particularly those of industrial or biological relevance. --Rifleman 82 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethanol changes 

message: Been looking at these as part of link repair (You can help!), and I, and User:ThisIsAce both don't know enough to know if the unmatched parentheses in the chemical names are right or not.  Could someone take a look? — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For WE-Chemists note that this list includes ammonia, phenol, sulfuric acid, ethylenediamine as "extremely hazardous." So this list illustrates a broadened definition of the word "extremely".--Smokefoot 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you look at the refs, it seems that list was essentially pulled from an EPA list, so it's what the government thinks :)  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I linked some of the compounds in this list to articles and I am done with it. To me the list is a random collection of chemicals without much rationality. V8rik 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List_of_Extremely_Hazardous_Substances]] 

message: Could someone with knowledge of the subject please take a look at Ethoxyquin. This is a food additive (often a "preservative") that  every site that isn't Wikipedia says is potentially harmful. The current article reads almost like propaganda, as it references an FDA statement from 1989. There are many reports from the FDA in the 18 year interim that suggest the opposite, besides the fact that the American FDA isn't the ultimate authority on everything. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the editor who added most of the content of the article.  It is based on information from reliable sources - the Merck Index and the Food and Drug Administration.  I think it is a silly exaggeration to characterize the article as propaganda - I certainly have no interest in having the compound characterized inaccurately.  I looked for reliable sources (including the FDA) to back up claims of safety dangers, but couldn't find one.  If you can find a more recent statement from the FDA that contradicts the FDA report cited in the article, it would benefit the article to add it and I would welcome its addition.  --Ed (Edgar181) 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I didnt see anything that looked strange - seems to be a straightforward, objective article. I recommend detagging.--Smokefoot 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethoxyquin 

message: :Cross-posted to WT:PHARM.
New article. I've never, ever heard of this (not surprising), but it appears to be an elaborate hoax. No hit on the CAS or PubChem entries, ATCs do not exist. The second cited source is actually . Could use a hand or a cluestick, please :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it looks like a hoax. No google hits for isopapa, and the references seem fabricated. --Itub 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this will require an exteded clean-up. Multiple accounts have been used to add links to this nonsense to other articles. Check out Special:Contributions/Tmaester2345, Special:Contributions/Newcastleunii, Special:Contributions/Nuchem. --Itub 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator admitted it was a hoax. I've deleted the article and structure image and rolled back all edits from the above accounts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Isopapa-dimethoxy-aniline]] 

message: Not being too experienced with posting comments to Wikipedia, I hope I am doing this right. If not I apologize in advance.
I believe that the article on anabasine contains an error. It refers to anabasine as a metabolite of certain tobacco alkaloids. It is my understanding, based on discussions with colleagues who are toxicologists, that anabasine is not a metabolite (in the sense of a compound generated by metabolism in humans), though it is found in tobacco and some other plants. It is this fact which makes anabasine levels in body fluids a powerful indicator of tobacco use by a patient. Some other tobacco alkaloids, such as nicotine, are less useful because they can also come from sources other than tobacco, such as the nicotine patch, and therefore do not provide conclusive evidence of tobacco use. However, high anabasine levels are a very strong indicator of tobacco use.
Unfortunately, I don't have a reference handy, but I believe references can be found in some tox books.
Mass-man 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the phrase to "minor tobacco alkaloid" to match the source that was cited. Is that correct? --Itub 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe the statement on anabasine is now correct. I do not know about the source one way or the other. Thanks.Mass-man 06:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anabasine 

message: The article turkenol is nonsense to me.  There is no record of it in PubChem or Chem Abstracts.  For now, I have added a proposed deletion tag, but maybe it should be deleted as a hoax immediately (no real hurry though since it's been around for years!).  Can anyone either verify or debunk the article? --Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the article was created at Meta in late 2005 and moved over here. Hyper-mastication? Prod is fine IMHO—the article's been here for two years, after all. It's also not complete gibberish (i.e. "fhdfklflknmlkvmlb CLOWNS!") so G1 might be a stretch; a reasonable person with no knowledge of chemistry might find this to be a serious article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven as "made up".  Thanks.  --Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Turkenol]] 

message: There's been an interesting series of posts on the ChemSpider blog recently regarding the structure of paclitaxel, and WP gets plenty of mention :) I left a comment to the second post of the series, on the accuracy of :Image:Taxol.svg. Antony has posted to Talk:Paclitaxel noting (after quite an admirable bit of research) that our PubChem was incorrect, as well as, apparently, the IUPAC name provided, while the structure itself was fine. Anyone care to have a look? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've created a few incorrect structures after not taking PubChem data with a grain of salt (Ed will remember one, I'm sure). There are several entries with inaccuracies; one major problem I often find is PubChem's handling of tautomers—it always seems to display minor/unstable ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paclitaxel 

message: Hello: I would appreciate a review of the Polyurethane article. I have made a significant number of additions and changes over the past few months and would appreciate some critical feedback, and suggestions for further expansion and improvement. I'd like to get this article out of start class ASAP. Best Regards, P Cottontail 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyurethane 

message: In the old chemboxes, there was a link for external msds; in many chemicals articles, it exists at the external links section. I'm proposing that for all articles using , all these external links be removed in favor of the CAS number link out. Comments please? --Rifleman 82 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that this might make it a little too difficult for the average user to find an MSDS.  For someone specifically looking for an MSDS, it may not be obvious that it could be found by clicking on the CAS number and being sent to emolecules.com.  And I'm not sure that an MSDS could always be found via the data and links provided there.  As an aside, does anyone know if there is any comprehensive public online database of MSDSs?  --Ed (Edgar181) 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about tweaking  then? We could un-link the CAS#, but add another field which says "Suppliers and MSDS" which links to e-molecules? It should link automatically, to minimize duplicate work. Alternatively, for the title of the CAS# field, we can rename it "CAS (Links to suppliers and MSDS" --Rifleman 82 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding a comprehensive online public data base of MSDS, I don't think there is one, at least in the US. I have found MSDS for industrial chemicals by running internet searches, and can often find them by digging on manufacturer's sites, but nothing I'd feel comfortable linking directly into. I like Rifleman's idea abouting adding another field to the . P Cottontail 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MSDS

message: As part of WikiProject GA's sweeps process, we are reviewing all current GAs to see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm reviewing all of the chemistry articles. As it stands now, Ethanol is dangerously close to losing it's GA status, having been nominated early in the GA program's history (12/8/2005), it lacks referencing, and has become a bit disorganized. So if anyone has a moment in the next couple of days, swing on by and see what you can do. Dr. Cash 06:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: [[Ethanol]]

message: *Sodium ferrocyanide has some problems with the IUPAC namin compared to Potassium ferrocyanide.
** Physchim62 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: *Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate
*Gadolinium nitrate
*Paprika oleoresin
*Manganese Triacetate might need a move to Manganese(III) acetate
-Stone 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: I think the article perfluorocarbon mixes up 2 different topics:
* short chain PFCs with a high greenhouse warming potential
* long chain PFCs such as PFOS or PFOA that do not have a high greenhouse warming potential, but are persistent in the environment
DuPont, the largest producer of these compounds, groups the organic fluorine chemistry in 3 groups:
* Fluorochemicals (small molecules 1-8 carbons; uses for refrigerants, cleaning solvents, blowing agents, CFC alternatives
(e.g. HFCs))
* Fluoro-Organics (“short” fluorine chains attached to organic polymer backbones [F(CF2)n-] n > 4; uses for surface modification & protection, surfactants, water & oil repellency)
* Fluoropolymers (high MW (107) polymers; PTFE & Melt Copolymers, fluorinated “backbone”; uses for cookware, CPI linings, aerospace, automotive, apparel, construction, etc)
The fluoropolymers have their own article, but the two others are mixed up in perfluorocarbon. In the German Wikipedia, there are 2 individual articles: 
I know that an overview is given in fluorocarbon, but to me it's still confusing.
--217.11.34.119 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a chemical point of view, there is no obligation to split up perfluorocarbon into two articles. From the different uses and environmental implications (greenhouse gases vs. POPs), however, two individual articles would be a benefit for the reader. 129.132.210.4 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, I agree on these points. Unfortunately, the guy from EWG (Kmarkey) has not been active for the last four month. Is there somewhere else who is familiar with fluorine chemistry? --Leyo 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Perfluorocarbon]] 

message: It is that time of the year again: Nobel prizes! So if you think you know who will win this year it is perhaps an interesting idea to check if a relevant article and a bio exist. My bet (same as last year):James Fraser Stoddart. Announcement: Chemistry - Wednesday, October 10, 11:45 a.m. CET (at the earliest) according to the website V8rik 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My money is on George M. Whitesides, but I had read speculation on Dieter Seebach, for which we have no article.--Smokefoot 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My bet is for another biologist to win.  (Just like last year.) ~K 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have an article on Dieter Seebach--Stone 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, my money is on Seebach as well; we're going to have to start writing article on dendrimers! Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already on! --Stone 16:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel 2007 season 

message: From time to time people make articles on chemicals with only an infobox, and then someone often nominates them for speedy delete. i don't think it makes any sense to do this and have to start over, so i generally decline such requests for deletion. At the moment Leu-enkephalin is in that state, declined, but then  I've been challenged on that. the same ed. also has remarked Chlorophenol red. Perhaps somebody could fix them, or suggest how thy should be handled.  DGG (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me these seem more like stubs than empty articles.  Thanks for "saving" them.  Usually these are created in response to a redlink, but the article's creator doesn't have the knowledge and/or time to write more than a stub.  I've cleaned up chlorophenol red a bit, but it could certainly use some expansion.  --Ed (Edgar181) 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox-only articles

message: There's a user,  who is insisting on placing state symbols in the formulae fields of chemboxes. See here and this representative diff I disagree. Very strongly. Firstly, there is a separate field for the appearance of the chemical. Secondly, acids are NOT by definition aq. Any comments here? --Rifleman 82 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you. Those symbols are not necessary, and the assertion that all acids are aqueous is complete nonsense. Moreover, if you look at any chemistry dictionary, catalog, encyclopedia, or handbook, these "state symbols" are not used. Adding them goes against common practice. The only place where they are commonly used in my experience is when writing thermodynamic equations. --Itub 09:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also completely agree.  It does not belong in the formula field, it belongs in the appearance field.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State symbols in chemboxes

message: The question is, should the pharmacology guidelines for INNs apply to organic synthesis articles?. Please see discussion at Talk:Paclitaxel total synthesis. --Itub 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two significant threats to the health of WE-chem are editors who are adamant on nomenclature and those that are similarly orthodox on detailed safety instructions.  My experience is that such editors rarely  contribute scientific content that requires integration/distillation of knowledge.  Fortunately other parts of Wikipedia are more attractive to such zealots and they wander off, allowing the scientific content to grow.--Smokefoot 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat unrelated question: why is "Taxol" capitalized in all of the article titles? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxol is often capitalized in the literature (I think because it is a brand?), but not always. Look at the references and you'll see the inconsistent usage. ;-) --Itub 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh. So when it was isolated, it was termed taxol, but "Taxol" later became a trademark? That enough would clinch it for me (using the INN); the only reason I'm still neutral is the (apparently) more common usage of "taxol" in the chemical literature. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.: the INN of "galanthamine" is galantamine, so Galanthamine total synthesis might require renaming if the WP:PHARM guidelines are indeed to apply :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines and styleguides are no law and to avoide them with good reason is not forbidden, but alowed!!--Stone 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I haven't yet formed an opinion on this; I'm not pleased with the idea of inconsistency across articles, though... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick question. Although I like the idea of total synthesis of pharmaceuticals being published where everybody can freely view it, my question is: how is it that doing so in WP does not violate its edict about articles not being how-to manuals?? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a how-to, but a description of a scientific achievement. A how-to would read more like the experimental section of a publication: "in a round-bottom flask put 500 mg of X, add 5 mL of Y, stirr at 70 deg C for 2 hours, and filtrate...". --Itub 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Describing an important industrial process does not amount to a manual but is an important part of any encyclopedic entry. Ideally most important industrial products should indicate feed stocks and waste products as well as common methods of manufacture linking to articles about each part of the process. Also historical methods of manufacture and changes in these methods and why they have changed. Unnecessary specifics should be avoided. Most industrial processes are done in slightly different ways in different places but share common principles.--Nick Y. 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You have answered my question to my satisfaction. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for articles on the total synthesis of pharmaceuticals 

message: I'm not part of WikiProject Chemicals, but I happen to be very interested in the Cahn-Ingold-Prelog system and noticed that the Wikipedia article was badly in need of attention.  I have just completed major changes to the Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rule article, including a rewrite of the explanation of priorities.  Please see if my changes are to your liking and revert as necessary if not. Hashproduct 05:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rule 

message: I have remarked that normally no sources are cited for chemical properties in the chembox (even if no MSDS is linked). Is that a common agreement not to have these "[1]" in the chemobox? In de-WP, we try to cite sources for non-trivial properties such as e.g. melting point, vapor pressure or hazard symbols. We often use the GESTIS Substance Database that includes information on hazards as well as chemical properties for thousands of (hazardous) chemicals. For the purpose of easily creating a reference including a direct link to the substance entry in the database, we have recently created a template. It is used i a growing number of articles, e.g. in DDT. The English version of the caption would be
:"Record of DDT in the GESTIS Substance Database, accessed 13 October 2007"
or similar. Do you think that there could be a use for this template in en-WP as well? If yes, I would create the template and use it in my futher work here. --Leyo 12:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support citing sources for data: density, m.p. spectroscopic, thermodynamic, crystallographic data.  Crystal structures for compounds should be cited.--Smokefoot 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. I always add the source for such data when I add the data (which is not very often ;-). --Itub 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In conclusion, you support citing sources for data, but you don't think that there is a use for the template I proposed to create. Did I get you right? --Leyo 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't comment regarding the template. I certainly wouldn't oppose having the template, although I personally don't know if I would find it useful, given that I have never used this particular database. But if you edit the English Wikipedia enough to find the template useful for yourself, that's enough reason to create it IMO. --Itub 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for chemical properties 

message: Could someone create a short article on N-acetyltalosaminuronic acid?  It is an important structural component of the cell wall of some Archaea.  It is also one of the few red links in the article on the cell wall, which is the COTM for WP:MCB. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Rifleman 82 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article request 

message: Silverchemist and  I have put a lot of effort over the past couple of months into substantially improving the Polyurethane article. As a core article of high importance on the worklist, I recommend it be raised to B-Class. Thus, I would appreciate a peer review and comments, and if justified, the status raised as recommended. I look forward to the feedback and will gladly take suggestions for further improvement. Thanks in advance. P Cottontail 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this article is well into B class, and the question should be whether it is A or B. I've changed it into B for now. --Itub 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wim, thanks for doing this. I am looking forward getting the content and presentation up to A-class, then FA! Cheers, P Cottontail 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polyurethane]] article 

message: Sorry for the garishly pointed username, but I was wondering what it would take for a lil' old PhD student to become a contributor. I've been trying to change the carbon disulfide page ever so slightly. Someone keeps reverting the beginning to say that it is 'sweet smelling' when I know for a fact from working with HPLC-grade CS2 every day, that it does - like most sulfur-containing compounds - smell like rotten eggs.
I'm an organic/materials chemist at UCLA and am pretty well versed in functional materials (organic solar cells, conducting polymers, OLEDs, etc). The wiki doesn't quite mention how one becomes an official editor, sooooo I'll leave one of you gents (and I HOPE ladies; at least in the name of diversity in the chemistry world) to point me in the right direction.  Danke!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayknowsalchemy (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to do anything but edit, there are not "official" editors here. Regarding CS2, did you consider what the text say about the impurities? Maybe pure CS2 does smell sweet after all! I only used it once and don't remember it having a particularly terrible smell. But in any case, the best way to settle such a dispute is to look for a reference and cite it. --Itub 09:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, welcome and start editing away. Half of us editors are kids and half probably have semi-reasonable official credentials.  Who cares?  Itub's advice is right-on - most of us have a tome or three of factoids that we consult (and cite) as we edit articles.  Chemists often carry misconstrued ideas and myths in their heads, such as CS2 having a rotten odor (the good stuff does not, and HPLC-grade is not good enough).  For me, publicizing these inconvenient truths motivates my editing, because WE affords an opportunity to set the record straight(er).  BTW, a problematic area of WE-chem in strong need of editing is your apparent areas of expertise Conductive polymer and organic semiconductor.--Smokefoot 12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smokefoot:  While I recognize the necessity for siting credible references in regards to physical data; do not overestimate their importance (not that it seems that you, yourself offer any references to indicate that it is 'sweet' smelling). I read articles (from respectable journals, mind you; JACS, JOC, Angewandte Chemie, Advanced Materials, etc.) which have purposely-placed, LEGITIMATELY misguided data or explanations in order to make their hypotheses seem clearer. Generally speaking, I wouldn't want to make a huge fuss over whether or not something is 'stinky'. But...'miscontstrued myths'? I WORK WITH IT. I don't quite understand where you're coming from by making me sound like a quack. If anything, it's just a difference of opinion, and I'm slightly (very) annoyed that you would try to belittle my input by attaching such modifiers to them. I work in an organic chemistry lab 12 hours a day for 6 days a week (I have no references to prove this), which - in my humble opinion - is enough credibility to site my own experience which I hold to be purely objective and factual. To go so far as to label the idea that something is smelly as 'misguided' and 'an inconvenient truth' is just a tad unnecessary, if not a bit absurd. Furthermore, I hope you understand that if 'WE afford an opportunity to set the record straight'... then that includes ME now, so please recognize that. If there is a dispute, we should discuss it instead of childishly taking turns scratching out one another's 'inconvenient truths.' It is the worst possibly insult to use the word MYTH with a scientist. It reminds me of trying to talk to LaRouche propagandists. Don't stoop to that low. Respect me and I'll respect you.
Quarrels aside: in regards to the request you left after the moot hierarchal shove; I will look at what is currently in the section and begin building...possibly insert hyperlinks to new related articles, starting with the organic semiconductors (half the components in organic solar cells). I'm working on my oral to advance to candidacy, so have patience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayknowsalchemy (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a good idea to add worthwhile information into the articles and creating redirects from the old (odd?) names (e.g., Lunar caustic) to the current modern name (e.g., silver nitrate). And it's a good idea to sign your posts here with the four ~ characters. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributor? 

message: Do WP pharmacology (chemistry) guidelines for INNs apply to organic synthesis articles?
Please see the talk page at Talk:Paclitaxel total synthesis Alvis 10:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to insist--this topic was already advertised in this page one week ago (see above). --Itub 11:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INNs for organic synthesis articles? 

message: Could anyone check the accuracy of this image I created for cyclopentadienylmolybdenum tricarbonyl dimer? I'm not big on inorganics, and I don't have any sources for the structure—a quick Google search was it :) Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't tell by the pic, shouldn't the cyclopentadienes have two (conjugated) double bonds each? Or do they get taken up in the bonding to the Molybdenum atoms? P Cottontail 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those tiny erm, "sticks" (hopefully visible) are supposed to represent delocalization, as here (well, they're clearer in the latter). Are they not visible enough here? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cyclopentadienylmolybdenum tricarbonyl dimer]] 

message: Does it make sense that similar paragraphs have been included in multiple articles?
* Brominated flame retardant
* Polybrominated biphenyl
* Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
Furthermore, is the lemma IA-Mass a good choice? "Ion attached mass spectrometry" might be better. -- 212.41.68.237 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no result in google in a specific search, I am not sure if the article is either a fake or original research. There are also no references cited in the article. --Leyo 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the patent for the technique:,  ,  I had not heard of it before and I would tend to know about such things. It also does not pop up in the journals I am searching. Possibly marginally notable ionization method.--Nick Y. 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In summary, the technique exists, but it is new. Should the article therefore be kept, even it is possibly a marginally notable ionization method? --Leyo 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it exists, and sources can be found, it meets WP:V, so I believe it should be kept. However, I have certain concerns here. --Rifleman 82 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IA-Mass]] 

message: Near the last part of the page, it states, "Avoid bringing CuCl into contact with alkynes."  Is there a reason for this?  It cites reference, but does not explain why.  Just thought it would be significant.  Thanks, Marasama 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I brought CuCl into contact with an alkyne this morning.  Nothing happened until I added an azide (I did a Azide alkyne Huisgen cycloaddition).  I don't see any particular hazard, but don't have access to the cited reference.  --Ed (Edgar181) 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly it referes formation of copper(I) acetylide, which is an explosive. I think acetylides of higher alkynes are not so dangerous if preparation is carried out in solution. --Calvero JP 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, Marasama (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Copper(I) chloride]] 

message: (Also posted to WikiProject Elements.) Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenon. --Itub 11:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been promoted. Congratulations to all involved, especially User:RJHall for all his efforts! --Itub 09:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenon nominated for Featured Article 

message: I have added a new category for this group of compounds and new articles sulfur oxoacids, disulfuric acid, thiosulfuric acid, and added a little to existing articles on other S oxoacids. There are a few "not known" acids (where salts are known) without their own articles. Could someone check the SMILES please. Axiosaurus 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sulfur oxoacids

message: I have re-reviewed Iron(III) chloride in accordance with the WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps Review, and found that it mostly meets the GA criteria, with the exception of inline citations. There are significant parts of the article lacking inline cites; although I think that this could mostly be solved by converting the 'further reading' entries to inline citations. Could someone familiar with the article and the citations please look into this. I'll re-review the article in about a week or so. Thanks! Dr. Cash 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Iron(III) chloride#GA sweeps review|GA sweeps review of Iron(III)chloride]]

message: The template  seems to be broken currently.  Anyone know how to fix it?  There were some changes made to it earlier today - perhaps they should be reverted until the problem is identified?  --Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ho hum, it's taken you all more that a year to break my little baby! I'll take a look and see if I can fix it again. Please be kinfd to animals, small children and hideously complex systems of templates... Physchim62 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I looks OK to me at the moment, can someone post a more specific description of the problems if they reoccur. Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you misplaced a tag somewhere (though I'm not sure where....) I have moved the documentation onto a seperate page using  to prevent this sort of (possible) error from affecting article space. I briefly screwed up article space in the process of doing so (now corrected), which goes to show that nobody's perfect! :) Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chembox new is broken 

message: * Bromopentacarbonylrhenium(I)
* Dirhenium decacarbonyl
I'm still looking for the citation for Re(CO)5 --> ReBr(CO)5. Anyone has a clue?
--Rifleman 82 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's Chatt, and I think it's from about 1958, but that's going from memory. Physchim62 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: RM: great - you got one of the missing metal carbonyls, ... and make that Chatt.--Smokefoot 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't have inorganic syntheses (vol 23)at the time, but I borrowed volume 28 home for the weekend. Volume 28 is the special edition containing all the surefire optimized syntheses previously published. In the end, the updated Schmidt Trogler and Basolo synthesis in vol 28 was the one I used. Thanks!--Rifleman 82 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few new rhenium articles 

message: I'm doubtful of this chemical structure of vanadium(II) oxide. Any comments? If it's bogus, it probably should be IfD'ed. --Rifleman 82 17:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the null-image from the chembox.  The article is now automatically categorised in the :category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing.  I am sure one of our image-drawers will come to that sometime.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Vanadium_%28II%29_oxide_diagram.png]] 

message: Orphan article. Needs a bit of expansion/needs to be merged into a larger article. Never heard of this concept, not familiar wtih the H-nought notation, and can't find any google hits. Anybody can help? --Rifleman 82 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there is also an article on acidity function, which arguably could be merged with Hammett acidity function. --Itub 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Acidic power]] 

message: I found this with category links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_K./DMP  Is that okey?
ChristianB 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're supposed to add < nowiki > tags to them so as not to have them counted in other categories. But I think it'll be rude to edit someone else's sandbox without an invitation to do so. I'll drop her a note. --Rifleman 82 04:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on user page 

message: This article was orphaned and have added a chem box (new!) and removed the orphan tag as  I have added a little regarding Lewis acid adducts to the SO3 article.  This adduct is commercially available and seems to have some importance from an organic synthesis POV, references to sulfation, sulfamation etc. are easily googled. Can anyone take a look and add some organic words, references and possibly put it in the appropriate categories? Axiosaurus 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sulfur trioxide pyridine complex]]

message: Hi, for all those chemists who are active on IRC, Rifleman_82 and I have set up a channel on IRC for chemistry on wikipedia.  You can find us here: the wikichem channel.  To be able to talk with other online chemists there, you need an IRC program, like mIRC, the Chatzilla plugin for firefox, Opera (built in), and there will probably be more programs out there.  At the moment User:Rifleman_82 and I are the 'keepers/moderators' of the channel, but anyone can enter and talk!  Hope to see you there!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC 

message: I added a chemical table for citral.  I will try to create tables for all articles that are lacking the boxes.--Manderson198 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Hopefully there aren't too many of these left on the core list. Walkerma (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added table 

message: Following on from Rifleman's comments above, I also think it would be a good time to revisit the style guidelines. They are about two years old now (dispite some amendments from time to time): many of our current participants were not around when they were first written. Do they still reflect what we feel is good practice for chemicals articles? Is it worth taking some of the more specific guidelines and placing them in a Wikipedia:Manual of style section? Are there topics which should be cvered but which aren't. All comments are welcome :) Physchim62 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Units section does not agree with actual practice or with the MoS. It states too unequivocally that "Only metric units of the SI systems should be used". While I agree with not describing bond energies in BTU/(lb mol), we have to be realistic. Many areas of chemistry use units that are not part of the SI, whether for historical reasons or for good reasons. Examples include the very common use of kcal/mol by physical organic chemists, the use of debyes to measure dipole moments, angstroms to measure bond lengths (although there is some competition from pm), electron units to measure charges, the use of "molar" as a unit of concentration, and so on. The recently updated WP:MOSNUM says something more reasonable IMO: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always." --Itub (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did make some major changes not too long ago, which got Guide good responses (including from you, PC!). But yes, maybe we should relook the topic in greater detail. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can also agree about whether supplier information should be included in articles. See  and  and . --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style guidelines 

message: Image:Trehalose Haworth.svg|Trehalose Haworth.svgβ-L-Glucose in the right ring
Image:Trehalose2.svg|Trehalose2.svgβ-L-Glucose in the right ring
Image:Trehalose.svg|Trehalose.svgα-D-Glucose in the right ring
Image:Trehalose.png|Trehalose.pngα-D-Glucose in the right ring
A note was left on my Commons talk regarding a structure of trehalose, but (probably due to my dislike of Haworth formula and practically nil experience with them) I'm having trouble visualizing the requested change. Does this (to the right) look like α,α-trehalose to anyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the CH2OH on the right should be pointing down rather than up. --Itub 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm looking at it correctly, in :Image:Trehalose Haworth.svg every stereocenter in the right ring is inverted.  In other words, it has β-L-glucose rather than α-D-glucose.  A similar problem exists with :Image:Trehalose2.svg which is currently used at trehalose.  The images :Image:Trehalose.svg and :Image:trehalose.png get it right though.    Comparing different representations and orientations like these can be tricky, so I hope I've gotten this correct.  I've put the four images next to each other in a gallery to help compare them. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that everything is inverted in :Image:Trehalose2.svg, but not in :Image:Trehalose Haworth.svg. In the latter, the ring is upside down. The only stereocenter that was inverted is the one for the CH2OH. --Itub 12:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... one of mine was right and one of mine was wrong. Go figure. I guess I'll stick to skeletal formulae and chain representations :) Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the captions: Glucose is in none of these rings, I dont think.  The captions reminds me of other articles that  state that peptides contain, for example, glycine but peptides contain a derivative of glycine depending on the location of the residue (middle, N-terminus, C-terminus).  Glucose is a molecule, not conjugates thereof (IMHO).  I dont know the nomenclature otherwise- glucosyl might be the more appropriate term.  I realize that this perspective is anal, but that's chemistry.--Smokefoot 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback request 

message: On advice from User:Itub at the MOS subpage on technical terms and definitions, I've removed this section, which doesn't belong at MOS, and offer it up for this page. Here it is; please take what you want from it and add.
(snip) Tony (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire section is superfluous to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines, so we can just throw it away without losing sleep about it. --Rifleman 82 12:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project style guidelines are not very visible to the community as a whole, which is why I think we should move them somewhere else: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) is my preferred destination for a summary, with separate projectspace pages for each topic. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  now exists, but shouldn't be rolled out until some more of those redlinks are turned blue. Physchim62 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's about time we had our style guidelines outside project space.  I'll try and help with that once exams are over in a fortnight or so. Walkerma (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, everything's blue now on  except for WP:MOSCHEM. Thanks to everyone who's helped. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruous MOS section on chemistry articles 

message: Not sure how to report this problem perhaps someone out there knows how?  I have added a new article for arsenic pentachloride. The doi for one reference (Z anorg allgem chemie) is very long. The cite journal template and the doi template both fail with this extra long reference e.g.  displays incorrectly  and truncates the string and fails to retrieve the reference. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I turned < into %3C and > into %3E to make doi link work correctly (but not displayed correctly...). If anyone knows how to fix the template so that we don't need to do that, please go ahead! :) --Itub (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is actually problem documented on . --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you both. Axiosaurus (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: doi not treated correctly

message: There are a couple of minor problems with the article potassium perchlorate as mentioned on the talk page.  I took care of the image problem mentioned, but couldn't find the data to resolve the other two.  Can someone with a reference book handy please take a look? Thanks.  --Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Potassium perchlorate]] 

message: The article was last reviewed in October of 2005, so it's time to re-review again to see if this still meets the Good Article criteria. It continues to be very well written, and appears quite complete. The only significant concern I have is for verifiability. While there are good references, there are still many sections that are unsourced: e.g. 'Inorganic reactions', 'Thermal decomposition', 'Solubility data', and 'Thermodynamic data'. This information is actually hard data, and really needs to be sourced. Some of it probably came from the 'further reading' items, which were also previously listed as 'general references'. However, "general references" are unacceptable and cannot be used  -- information should be cited directly by inline citations instead, so that it is clear where the information came from.
Other than this issue, I think the article continues to meet the criteria. So I will put this on hold for the next 1-2 weeks or so, so that this can be addressed. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review for [[Lithium Aluminium Hydride]]

message: Comments are requested at Talk:DDT#Major_split_into_seperate_articles. --Itub (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of DDT 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Tetrafluoromethane regarding alternate names that could use some knowledgeable input. The question is whether CFC-14 is a correct alternate name. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFC-14 & Tetrafluoromethane 

message: Well, as of right now, most of the articles have both a picture of their shape and their 3D model. See Tetrafluoroethylene for an example of what I mean. But, my idea is, why don't we also add an image of a dot diagram? I apologize if this is the improper place to post this. This just seemed like the most appropriate place to post this at. § Eloc § 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed this is a good place to post such thoughts or ideas.  Dot diagrams give an overly simplified impression of bonding, i.e. they are misleading or impractical. So I oppose presenting more of them.  The article Chemical bond has some.  Virtually all hydrocarbons can be represented with them, but there seems no point in cluttering such pages with lot of dot diagrams since the diagrams would be a little redundant. At least these my views, others might feel differently. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find dot diagrams not helpful (except when you are counting electrons, perhaps). They are not as compact as line drawings, and nobody really uses them anyway. So no, I don't think we should have them for "completeness". --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think dot diagrams are very useful as a learning tool for students learning the octet rule etc, but I don't think a Lewis structure would really enhance most articles like tetrafluoroethylene.  It's fairly easy even for a beginner to see that carbon forms four bonds and fluorine one.  I think there may be a handful of particular cases (perhaps sulfur dioxide or boron trifluoride?) where a Lewis structure may add educational value, but it would have to be part of a written section on structure and bonding that might explain the oversimplification. If you were able to expand these written sections, it would be great!  In the meantime, let me say that we appreciate your work on the redirects - it's something important that often gets overlooked.  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Walkerma says, I think the dot diagrams are useful only in limited cases where there is an explicit discussion of bonding. For example, with some diatomic molecules such as O2, NO, CO, etc. (where often the discussion focuses on the failings of the Lewis model!). Another example where a discussion of the Lewis structure could be useful is sulfuric acid, which is notable for the historical debates about what the "best" Lewis structure is (with double bonds and a hypervalent sulfur, or with formal charges and an octet-complying sulfur?). But for common organic molecules such as tetrafluoroethylene, I don't think the dot diagram is necessary. Finally, note that a normal structural diagram with explicit lone pairs is also a Lewis structure, just one where the bonds are represented by lines instead of pairs of dots. These are useful for drawing reaction mechanisms, and you will see them on many Wikipedia articles about reactions, but not so often in articles about chemicals. --Itub (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... another example where dot diagrams might be useful would be when discussing VSEPR. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lewis structure|Dot Diagrams]] 

message: Pentyne, Perkinamine and CLD chromophore need for sure more than a look.--Stone (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: If you are familiar with carotenoids, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 15#Template:Retinoids for a proposal to merge , , and . –Pomte 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Carotenoids}} 

message: There's carbon dioxide proper, and there's dry ice and amorphous carbonia. Do we need to suggest merging? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think so - there is only so much room in the main CO2 article, and we would lose a lot from both if we merged.  Dry ice is a part of general culture outside of chemistry, and the amorphous carbonia is something with a niche interest in areas like astrochemistry.  But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if there are strong arguments for a merge. Walkerma (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe I split this page off from the CO2 page because I feel it is quite an important form of CO2. Furthermore, its properties and applications differ greatly from CO2 at normal temp and pressure. I am not philosophically opposed to a remerger, but I split it off ten because I thought it was best for the article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various forms of CO2