Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    Article alerts

    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Templates for discussion

    Files for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    (5 more...)

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (35 more...)

    Etymology entry on chloroform/iodoform

    [edit]

    Both the pages for chloroform and iodoform reference a specific etymology as halides of "formyle", which is purported to be the archaic radical theory name for CH. Neither entry is cited - I suspect the appropriate citation would be Dumas's original writings on the discovery of chloroform. My 19th-century German isn't up to snuff to see if he actually references that specific "radical" in his naming, as opposed to simply relating its formula and composition to formic acid/formaldehyde. Some quick Googling only turns up references to "formyle" as a surname or the French translation of "formyl".

    Can someone crosscheck if this is a claim that can actually be supported by Dumas's writings? There's some copyediting to be done regardless, since the articles mix the definitions of "radical" from then and now, but I'm loathe to prune the information if the specific history is there. Fishsicles (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Iupac nomenclature" listed at Redirects for discussion

    [edit]

    The redirect Iupac nomenclature has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 6 § Iupac nomenclature until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Widely Retracted Author's Older Work

    [edit]

    I frequently like to check Category:Articles citing retracted publications. Retraction Watch recently published an article [1] regarding Suman L. Jain. Despite her more recent work being frequently cited, I noticed that the category did not actually grow (indicating that the bot had not updated it yet to reflect the retracted papers). I searched the author's name manually and only came across two references on Wikipedia, both to an older work in Synlett - a journal with an impact score of ~2. This 2006 work was done through the same institute as the later retractions, and she is listed as the primary author as well. I am nowhere near qualified to check it, and I am unaware of what best practice would be to do if there are reasons to be concerned as well, and thus I would like to ask for wikiproject chemistry participants to look it over.

    The two pages are: Methylrhenium trioxide and Pyridine-N-oxide[1] Relm (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    References

    1. ^ Jain, Suman L.; Joseph, Jomy K.; Sain, Bir (2006). "Rhenium-Catalyzed Highly Efficient Oxidations of Tertiary Nitrogen Compounds to N-Oxides Using Sodium Percarbonate as Oxygen Source". Synlett. 2006 (16): 2661–2663. doi:10.1055/s-2006-951487.

    Notability of Marvin Louis Lewbart for steroids patents

    [edit]

    I have been doing a WP:NPP review of Marvin Louis Lewbart. After cleaning up a stack of refbombing plus sources which don't verify claims, I end up with a page of dubious notability. He has a GS h-factor of ~ 21, which includes 12 patents for steroids. From what I can see the only way he can pass WP:NPROF is if those patents are somehow notable enough, for instance they are for important medical steroids. I am interested in thoughts, e.g. yes, those are clearly notable or not notable, AfD is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

    [edit]

    Optical properties of carbon nanotubes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD on Jens Beckmann

    [edit]

    Hello -- this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jens Beckmann) could use some expert opinion from someone who knows about "synthetic inorganic and organometallic chemistry", particularly regarding the importance of synthesising a stable nitrene. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination for deletion of Template:Nuclides

    [edit]

    Template:Nuclides has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxo-degradation article

    [edit]

    Oxo-degradation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    My only involvement with that article is for copy-editing and occasional reversions of what appear to be non-NPOV edits, but from what I can glean on the talk page it sounds like the concept has been a controversial one. Recently a user, Paula Hickford, has been removing swathes of content and adding external links to the body. I am uncertain as to whether the sources being used are considered to be reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes, but I suspect some of the cited sources may potentially run afoul of WP:MEDRS or even WP:SECONDARY. If anyone could take a look at this article and figure out what's going on or direct me to a more suitable active WikiProject, that'd be much appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From a quick look, seems to be a case of self-disclosed WP:COI editing: Special:Diff/1276557161. The editor joined WP in 2018, but they've only made 8 edits to Oxo-degradation and 2 edits to their user talk page. It's good that they voluntarily disclosed their industry connection, and I'd appreciate it if you could advise them of relevant policy without jumping down their throat. While further discussion should probably take place on the article talk page, I share your concerns around appropriate sourcing; I don't think MEDRS applies, but DUE and SECONDARY are definitely relevant.
    The first review article I found on Google Scholar is doi:10.1002/pat.5253, which isn't an amazing paper but doesn't seem completely off base either. Regarding DUE, the version of the article you restored has a similar balance to this review paper, which is good, albeit our article lede states oxo-degradable plastics do not become biodegradable except over a very long period of time whereas the later statement These microplastics may take longer to degrade than initially anticipated depending on environmental conditions seems more accurate to me. It would be nice if we could include more information about the chemistry (most oxo-degradable plastics seem to be polyolefins loaded with 1–3% transition metal stearates as oxidation catalysts), but I don't have much time for WP editing right now and it's not the primary issue with the article, so I'll leave this to other editors to add in if they want. But yeah, thanks for flagging this and please drop us another note if you encounter more issues here. Preimage (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Preimage. I've directed her to this thread; hopefully she will explain more here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CASREF

    [edit]

    I've just come across Template:CASREF on the Zinc dithiophosphate page. It links to emolecules.com, which appears to be a commercial business. I suppose you could argue that CAS is also a business, but I'm still not sure how appropriate this kind of link is. Project Osprey (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In this particular case, the link doesn't even give a hit on the target emolecules database, so can't be used to verify the information. Now that CAS Common Chemistry exists, and does give a hit, there is no excuse for having this overtly commercial (i.e. "please buy this chemical from us") link, which in any case breaks the guidance at WP:EL, which suggests External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. I would remove such links on sight. Perhaps the template should be modified so that it does go to the CAS site, as there may be some valid uses for that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this while working on the ECHA chemicals list, zinc dithiophosphates have several broad CAS listings. I think re-pointing to CAS Common Chemistry would make sense. Project Osprey (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 17 articles currently use that template, so while re-pointing it would be valid, it could alternatively be removed entirely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The template appears to date from 2005. If we haven't found a good use for it by now then I don't expect we ever will... Project Osprey (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It exists on several other language Wikipedias, but I only find one or two transclusions there. On ja.wikipedia, it's not used at all. If we aren't going to rework it to point to CAS Common Chemistry, I'd remove every transclusion of it. Reconrabbit 15:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced a few of the transclusions with references to Common Chemistry, but some of the CAS numbers aren't listed there. Marbletan (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I handled the last few. CASREF is now unused. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:SMILESCAS also links to emolecules.com, so it should be handled in the same way. Marbletan (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just rooted out the last two uses of SMILESCAS, so that one could be "handled" by deletion. DMacks (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ready to delete?

    [edit]

    The linking chain is: {{SMILESCAS}} → {{CASREF}} → emolecules. Both of those two templates are now unused (except in old discusions and abandoned drafts). Ready to send them to the bit-bucket? DMacks (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think so, yes (and thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this). Does one delete a template in the same way you delete a page? Project Osprey (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree deletion. Probably polite to inform User:Shaddack, who seems to have started these templates in 2005 but was still active last November. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Project Osprey. For instructions on deleting a template, see WP:TFD, particularly WP:TFD#REASONS. YBG (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both up for discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_5. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truncated triakis tetrahedron

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truncated triakis tetrahedron has discussion on deleting article Truncated triakis tetrahedron. Some says it should be renamed into C28 fullerene or tetrahedral fullerene, or miscellanous name. Additional comments are welcomed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Should we change these redirects to set index articles that lists the minerals they form, similar to SrCO3? Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that a set index page would work well at that title. Marbletan (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: what next with Electron microscope, an entry page for a range of techniques

    [edit]

    I am starting an informal RfC (i.e. not actually going to a full {{RfC}}) on how to proceed with the entry page for a wide range of electron microscope pages. It is not in the greatest of shape, I have been slowly chipping away at it although it still needs work and sources. Please post to Talk:Electron microscope#RfC: what next with this page if this is in your area of interest. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Hypothetical processes has been nominated for discussion

    [edit]

    Category:Hypothetical processes has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

    Expert input is requested from participants regarding the best way to organize Category:Hypotheses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Catalysis section rewrites?

    [edit]

    I recently found Nanomaterial-based catalyst. This is what I would call a weak "nano-rules" article on supported metal catalysts written with a narrow view. Shockingly, much of what there is "potential catalysts", ignoring the existing multi-billion dollar industries. Considering how important metal catalysis is I will suggest some attention by proper card-carrying catalytic chemists (which I am not, just a peripheral academic). There would in the process need to be syncronization with Heterogeneous catalysis, Catalyst support and perhaps more. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. Big problems. The nano-X articles can seem out of control: Nanoring]], Nanowire, Nanorod, Nanobottle]], Nanoflare, nano flake, on and on (it would be useful to have the entire list). Some of these topics are probably legitimate, some not.
    With regard to useful, real heterogeneous catalysis, my approach or advice is to make sure that our core articles on catalysis (like you mention Heterogeneous catalysis, Catalyst support) are strong vs trying to deal with these nano articles.
    A related area is Colloidal gold, which has not made a red cent (or pence) for anyone. Wikipedia has many articles on gold clusters and related topics. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The gold articles are on my "to do" list, those are within my area of vague competence. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full list of titles containing nano* . Of the 1,290 many are, of course, not chemistry-related. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good list, time for some PRODs (I just did 3) and/or AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I've never really understood, wikipedia has no dedicated article on enantioselective catalysis (or asymmetric catalysis, whatever you're calling it), even though I strongly suspect that this is the most common approach. Instead various elements of that topic are discussed in numerous other pages--Project Osprey (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Write one! Ldm1954 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A general article on enantioselective catalysis would start by stating that all the principles with conventional catalysis apply, the focus on the "simple" fact that some component of the system must be chiral (even het catal), plus recognition plus prochirality, etc. The article would list the types of enantioselective catalysis, but there arent so many in Wikipedia. There is asymmetric hydrogenation (and related Transfer hydrogenation). I just started asymmetric epoxidation to mention Jacobsen epoxidation and Sharpless epoxidation. Asymmetric catalytic oxidation seems short. For asym alkene polymerization, see tacticity (which is tagged extensively as being deficient), hydrocyanation mentions the asym version barely. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC) revised--Smokefoot (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Recrystallization

    [edit]

    Recrystallization (chemistry) is a popular article (2500 views/mo) that has issues. I tried to address some of them, like the fact that saturated solutions are not required and refluxing is not so relevant either. That kind of stuff. Also I combed through J Chem Ed for some refs, which are only so-so. The article would benefit from fresh eyes. A lot of us know the topic sufficiently to contribute. The reason that I raise this particular article is the following complication: it is written sorta like a user manual, which bumps into WP:NOTMANUAL. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help keep the page Metabolism a FA!

    [edit]

    I need help finding sources for the following on the page Metabolism: File:Catabolism schematic.svg, File:Insulin glucose metabolism ZP.svg, and Modern biochemical research has been greatly aided by the development of new techniques such as chromatography, X-ray diffraction, NMR spectroscopy, radioisotopic labelling, electron microscopy and molecular dynamics simulations. These techniques have allowed the discovery and detailed analysis of the many molecules and metabolic pathways in cells.

    I am specifically asking for help from anyone knowledgeable in chemistry due to the chem elements in the diagrams.

    I have detailed this more at Talk:Metabolism#Sources_needed. Any feedback or help is appreciated! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Categorisation of non-binary hydracids/conjugate acids of non-oxo metallates

    [edit]

    I've been on an acid categorisation bender over on simple.wp, but a few particular compounds that have pages both there and here don't fit into easily verified categories (read: Gold Book entries). Specifically, I'm thinking about things like chloroauric acid and hexafluorosilicic acid, which are obviously not oxoacids but are also not binary acids. "Hydracid" is the Gold Book's implicit term for "non-oxo Bronsted acid", but it doesn't have its own file and is also used as a synonym for "binary acid" (including on our own binary acid page). At the moment we just categorise them under mineral acid here on en.wp, which isn't wrong, but is there a more specific category anyone can cite for this case?

    My brain wants to call them "complex acids", as they're conjugate acids of anionic complexes. Our own coordination complex page uses the term "acidic complex", but doesn't have a specific citation, and I'm not dredging the Red Book on a Thursday - and that term itself strikes me as a bit strange, since the relevant part to its (Bronsted) acidity is the counterion, not any part of the complex itself being "acidic". But that's all off memory and vibes. Does anyone have anything more concrete? Thanks! Fishsicles (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel your pain. Rambling perspective: the articles associated with "H2SiF6" and HAuCl4" have been occasionally controversial partly because these species don't really exist as compounds. I mean, what exactly is H2SiF6 supposed to be? Something with H-F-Si linkages? Probably not. You can buy or make a solution of H2SiF6, but it's really something like (H3O)2SiF6. One such species that is widely used is fluoroboric acid, but I dont think that HBF4 exists, rather H(OEt2)BF4 or H3OBF4. Another case is "barfic acid", HBArF4, it always has ether or water in it.
    Oh, to address your question, these species might be call "hydronium salts": their default form is aqueous, hence H3O+. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, as far as I'm aware all of these acids have complicated protonated solvents as the counteranion rather than actual H+. Which makes sense, given that any solvent is going to be more basic than a basically unbound hydrogen. I imagine a "pure" aluminosilicic acid would be [H2F]2[SiF6], but I also imagine that would probably dissociate into HF and SiF4. Fishsicles (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hydronium salts" isn't a bad idea, really. Or lyonium salts, perhaps, to be solvent-agnostic? Fishsicles (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sleeping on it, I think "solvated proton acid" is probably a good descriptive name. Describes the actual mechanism of acidity without limiting it to just H3O+ (both for cases where hydrogen coordinates to more than one water, and for those acids that can be made in multiple solvents, e.g. protonated ether salts).
    As another aside, our fluoroboric acid page claims that "anhydrous" HBF4 can be prepared using acetic anhydride. I don't have access to the paper - published 1977 - but I suspect in context this is preparation of H3OBF4, but removing any excess water from the aqueous acid. The only alternative that comes to mind is some version of [CH3C(OH)2][BF4] and I can't imagine aqueous HBF4 protonating acetic acid. Fishsicles (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Something of an aside. Compounds that are classically thought of at being Lewis acid catalysis, such as boron trifluoride etherate, aren't effective catalysis for things like the Friedel-Crafts reaction if they're totally dry (doi:10.1038/158094c0, doi:10.1002/pola.20036). Trace water is needed. This implies that the active species is a 'complex acid' - to use Fishsicles terminology. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting! I suppose that would make these active species would be Bronsted conjugate acids of e.g. [BF3OH]−, and yet you don't see reference to e.g. HBF3OH "trifluorohydroxyboric acid". I'd be curious to see a breakdown of which reagents are referenced as informal compounds like HBF4 and which are treated as solely the Lewis acids - I suspect that it will likely be a question of the stability of the anion or its salts? Fishsicles (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Polanyi work mentioned by Project Osprey concerns olefin chemistry. Indeed, olefins require protons to alkylate arenes and to polymerize. The protonation generates an alkyl carbocation. But, for conventional Friedel-Crafts reactions of alkyl halides or acyl halides + arenes, anhydrous Lewis acids are probably superior. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! Fishsicles (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smokefoot Probably, but I've never been entirely sure. I mean how dry can laboratory aluminum chloride get? The trouble is that you risk getting into a discussion on olation, and I am at least wise enough to leave those sorts of mysteries well enough alone. Project Osprey (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revista Brasileira de Química for AFD

    [edit]

    This was, IMO, an important chemistry journal in the mid 1900s, certainly important in Brazil. However, there's a few publications named similarly, by two publishers named similarly, and it's very hard to make sense of sources (or find them) when you don't speak Portugese.

    Help would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Copper extraction § Splitting proposal

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Copper extraction § Splitting proposal. Gracen (they/them) 11:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting comment specifically on how metallurgy articles are generally handled. Gracen (they/them) 11:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Uniform approach to extraction and refining of industrial metals

    [edit]

    Per the above discussion on copper extraction, but independent of whether that particular split is necessary, I would like to discuss a more uniform approach to pages like nickel mine and iron ore, which cover things in detail beyond the usual "occurrence" and "production" sections on an element's own page. It seems there are a few different pages on similar topics, but naming and contents are a bit inconsistent, and I wonder if a structured cleanup would be useful. My immediate thought is something like this:

    • By default, "ore", "mine", "refining", "mining", "refinery", etc. should redirect to #Occurrence and production on an element's page.
      • The main exception here is elements with a single major ore, such as the current redirects aluminium ore->bauxite and tin ore->cassiterite.
      • Possibly also an exception for rare earths, since it doesn't make sense to talk about them separately in most of these contexts?
    • If the section is large enough to split (most should be):
      • "ore" and mining related terms should redirect to #Occurrence, which focuses on mineral occurrence and extraction of the ore minerals
      • "smelting" and refining related terms should redirect to #Production, which focuses on how the element or its important derivatives are made from the ore mineral after extraction
    • If either or both of those sections are large enough to warrant their own pages (most won't be, but some might), the former goes to "[x] mining" and the latter to "[x] refining". Maybe with a disambig page for "extraction"?

    Any thoughts on something like this? Fishsicles (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support If we can reach consensus, some existing articles might need to be modified to redirect or merged. At the stage of consensus, we would want to have a list of all articles affected, e.g. copper ore, copper mine, copper mining, copper refining, copper smelting, ... Also we would need to be sure that all relevant element articles have sections entitled ==Occurrence== and ==Production==. One modification of your plan: even if the element has a single major ore, we stick to the plan. We could have a {{main|Cassiterite}} for the tin article's ==Occurrence==. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be all for sending the ore redirects to element main pages - the main reason I left that example in is that it seems to be one of the few consistent things as-is, but I'm completely fine with changing it. I'm not really ride or die for any specific part of the plan as it exists, other than "there should be a plan". Fishsicles (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with a strong preference for Smokefoot's suggestion. I believe it makes sense to collaborate with WikiProject Elements on this, although I'm not sure what the status of their style guide is. Gracen (they/them) 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support having a general plan. I think we should have these options for the element article
    1. Single section § Occurrence and production
      1a. always with anchors to allow links to both #Occurrence and #Production. Generally inbound links should point to one of these and not to O&P
      1b. with a {{main}} hatnote if there is an article that encompasses both topics
      1c. with {{see also}} hatnote(s) if a separate article exists for either or both topics
      1d. even when there is a hatnote, always have at least a summary paragraph so those following an inbound link get some info without having to click twice.
    2. Two sections § Occurrence and § Production
      2a. no need for a #Occurrence and production anchor (open to be convinced otherwise)
      2b. with a {{main}} hatnote if there is an appropriate article
      2c. include a {{see also}} hatnote in the unlikely event one is appropriate
      2d. even when there is a hatnote, always have at least a summary paragraph so those following an inbound link get some info without having to click twice.
    Other notes
    • I lean toward Smokefoot’s idea if not making an exception for single ore elements
    • I also think there should be no exception for rare earths, even though the {{main}} or {{see also}} hatnotes would point to identical articles
    • I agree that after general consensus a list of specific element-by-element changes should be made; this may turn up some places where we should consider changing the general rules
    • these rules should be incorporated into the WP:ELEM style guide, using this as an impetus to either bring it up to date one way or another
    — YBG (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding no "backwards compatibility" anchor for case 2. Per case 1, inbound links and redirects shouldn't point to that section anyway, so there's no reason to bake in support for something that's already discouraged.
    My only thought on the exception for single ore/rare earth elements is that someone who's specifically typing in e.g. "aluminium ore" is probably looking more for bauxite specifically than for an overview of aluminium mining, but that's purely vibes based and having a hatnote just adds one more click even if that is the case, so I'm not about to die on the hill. It's certainly better from a standardisation perspective to not make the exceptions. Fishsicles (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Is "Production" the best choice? Even the title of the topic uses "extraction". Plutonium is produced, but oxygen is extracted. "Production" focuses on the human activity rather than the element/chemical. The process is more clearly called "extraction" IMO. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the current standard for sections within element articles per WP:ELEM. Part of the problem that prompted this was ambiguity on "extraction". For dedicated articles, my suggestion was "mining" for extraction of ore minerals from the earth and "refining" for extraction of pure metal from ore minerals. Fishsicles (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding the "mining" and "refining" distinction. I do agree with Johnjbarton that "production" sounds a bit wonky, but I'd imagine we should take that up at WT:ELEM. Gracen (they/them) 14:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Chemical data pages

    [edit]

    These create duplicates on Wikidata for the real substance and the "Wikipedia chemical data page" which is not helpful for matching. I assume that these predate Wikidata, are now redundant and can be safely deleted? Matthias M. (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help illustrate climate change information on Wikipedia and win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg

    [edit]

    Dear all

    I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition at Wikiproject Climate Change to encourage people to help improve visual information about climate change including the science behind it. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.

    Please let me know if you have any questions

    Thanks :)

    John Cummings (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dehalocarbonylation?

    [edit]

    To improve our perfluoroalkoxy alkane page I've gone on a patent dive, and found the literature regularly references "dehalocarbonylation" of (perfluoro) alkoxy carboxylates to (perfluoro) vinyl ethers. This is a term I'm unfamiliar with, and some hunting has only really turned up more fluoropolymer publications, many of which I don't have immediate access to.

    From the name this reaction ought to be the elimination of COX2, but the claimed reactions (e.g. US patent 3180895 , intro of doi:10.1021/jo01258a067) appear prima facie to involve elimination of CO2 and F− from R2FC−CO−2. I suspect that the name is not descriptive of the mechanism, but rather the overall process of eliminating COX2 from an acyl halide (which would include conversion to carboxylate as well as the pyrolysis), but if anyone has any good sources to discuss this process in more detail it'd be appreciated. Fishsicles (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Describes a specific reaction as a "dehalocarbonylation".
    • Illy, N., Taylan, E., Brissault, B., Wojno, J., Boileau, S., Barbier, V., & Penelle, J. (2013). Synthesis and anionic ring-opening polymerization of crown-ether-like macrocyclic dilactones: An alternative route to PEG-containing polyesters and related networks. European polymer journal, 49(12), 4087-4097.
    Uses the word in "decarboxylation (dehalocarbonylation in the case of diacyl halides)"
    My take is that this is a rarely used word meaning decarboxylation with a halide in the role of hydrogen. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a pretty good recent account, with mechanism, at doi:10.1126/science.abm8868, an open access article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both! This is exactly the sort of thing I needed. Fishsicles (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=1287781588"