Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57: 3 months

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

09 Oct 2025 – Reticular materials (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by WeirdNAnnoyed (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
08 Oct 2025 – Jixin Chen (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Ldm1954 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
07 Oct 2025 – 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ReyHahn (t · c); see discussion (7 participants)
07 Oct 2025 – Julian Brown (influencer) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Bridget (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
06 Oct 2025 – Sivanandi Rajadurai (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by CharlieMehta (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
05 Oct 2025 – Introduction to quantum mechanics (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by GnocchiFan (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)
04 Oct 2025 – -phil- (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Altenmann (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
03 Oct 2025 – 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ReyHahn (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)
25 Sep 2025 – Supercritical hydrolysis (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by DMacks (t · c); see discussion (8 participants; relisted)
27 Sep 2025 – Ioannis Arabatzis (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Dionysodorus (t · c) was closed as delete by OwenX (t · c) on 05 Oct 2025; see discussion (7 participants)

(15 more...)

Proposed deletions

04 Oct 2025 – European List of Notified Chemical Substances (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Anonrfjwhuikdzz (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 09 Oct 2025
03 Oct 2025 – 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by ReyHahn (t · c) was deproded by Christian75 (t · c) on 07 Oct 2025
31 Aug 2025 – SP Chemicals (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Anonrfjwhuikdzz (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 05 Sep 2025
23 Aug 2025 – Exposure scenario (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Anonrfjwhuikdzz (t · c) and endorsed by Reconrabbit (t · c) on 26 Aug 2025 was deleted
30 Jul 2025 – Sequential walking (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Chidgk1 (t · c) and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 01 Aug 2025 was deleted

Categories for discussion

07 Oct 2025 – Category:Smelters of Kosovo (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Nederlandse Leeuw (t · c); see discussion
07 Oct 2025 – Category:Metallurgical industry of Kosovo (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Nederlandse Leeuw (t · c); see discussion
07 Oct 2025 – Category:Nigerien chemists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion
07 Oct 2025 – Category:Kosovan chemists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion
07 Oct 2025 – Category:Malawian chemists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion
12 Sep 2025 – Category:Biomolecules by type (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
08 Sep 2025 – Category:Sub-micron microscopy (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
05 Sep 2025 – Category:Italian metallurgists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LibStar (t · c) was closed; see discussion
05 Sep 2025 – Category:Ivorian metallurgists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LibStar (t · c) was closed; see discussion
05 Sep 2025 – Category:Luxembourgian metallurgists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LibStar (t · c) was closed; see discussion

(4 more...)

Templates for discussion

26 Aug 2025 – Template:CRC87 (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

09 Oct 2025 – Professor Yaghi (talk · edit · hist) →Omar M. Yaghi was RfDed by Apocheir (t · c); see discussion
09 Oct 2025 – Prof Yaghi (talk · edit · hist) →Omar M. Yaghi was RfDed by Apocheir (t · c); see discussion
05 Oct 2025 – Dioyl dichloride (talk · edit · hist) →Acyl chloride was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
05 Oct 2025 – Methyl bicarbonate (talk · edit · hist) →Bicarbonate was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
04 Oct 2025 – Heteroarene (talk · edit · hist) →Simple aromatic ring was RfDed by Myceteae (t · c); see discussion

A-Class review

undated – Manhattan Project feed materials program (talk · edit · hist) was put up for A-Class review

Good article nominees

09 Sep 2025 – Marianne Angermann (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Jolielover (t · c) was closed
13 Jul 2025 – Intrinsic bond orbitals (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by 174.60.218.59 (t · c) was closed

Inorganic Syntheses

The series called Inorganic Syntheses (IS) is usually treated in the research literature as a journal. There are about 36 volumes, each with about 40-60 preps. When IS is cited in the research literature, the editor of the volume is not mentioned. The isbn is not mentioned. The checkers (people who test the prep) are not mentioned, just like the checkers for Organic Syntheses are not mentioned. I have added a lot of these refs, but the formatting machine and well-intentioned editors often convert my work from "cite journal" to "cite book". It's not a big deal, but at least you all know what is going on. (COI disclosure: I edited one volume of IS). --Smokefoot (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case citation bot should be changed to convert this to cite journal, not cite book. User:Headbomb will probably need to know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inorganic Syntheses is a book series, so we cite it as a book. This is no different than citing say, SPIE Proceedings. To save space, one can cite doi:10.1117/12.3056045 as a 'journal', i.e.

Rusciano, Giulia; Capaccio, Angela; Catalano, Benedetta Francine; Sasso, Antonio (2025). "Bimetallic porous nanopatterns for SERS‑based sensing platforms". Proceedings of the SPIE. 13528: 135280F. doi:10.1117/12.3056045.

though you really should cite as a book proper

Rusciano, Giulia; Capaccio, Angela; Catalano, Benedetta Francine; Sasso, Antonio (2025). "Bimetallic porous nanopatterns for SERS‑based sensing platforms". In Rendina, Ivo; Petti, Lucia; Sagnelli, Domenico; Nenna, Giuseppe (eds.). Smart Materials for Opto-Electronic Applications 2025. Proceedings of the SPIE. Vol. 13528. p. 135280F. doi:10.1117/12.3056045. ISBN 978-1-5106-8852-0.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Format ion formula

Hey chemistry folks, I came across TM:Format ion formula at Pacemaker current today. I find it odd that it seems to insert a space before the ion charge (superscript +). Is this supposed to work this way? I have never seen a space between element and charge before. I would ping the template creator, but it seems they've been vanished... Toadspike [Talk] 13:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant HCN channel, not pacemaker current. And it seems this template is used all of three times [1]. I may just replace all uses and nominate for deletion instead of bothering you guys about it. Toadspike [Talk] 13:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Yes, that template seems to be unnecessary and as Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Format ion formula reveals is hardly used. For simple ions, using a superscript + would be fine, or {{chem2}} is our current standard for more complex cases. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regular icosahedron

Hi. I would like for someone to help me improve the part of the polyhedron's application

The regular icosahedron is the special case of a polyhedron obtained by attaching two pentagonal pyramids to the antiprisms while preserving the dihedral group $D_{5\mathrm {h} }$ symmetry. This polyhedron, known as bicapped pentagonal antiprism, has the same orbital hybridization's scheme sp³d³, like other polyhedra with the same symmetry.

I am somehow stuck: my uneducated guess is the regular icosahedron has sp³d⁵f³, the same as the bicapped pentagonal antiprism D_5h. Is that correct? I provide the source here [2] (for PDF: [3]). Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A regular icosahedron is a bicapped pentagonal antiprism: anything true of the general case will hold for the more specific regular case. That said, the f orbitals are generally too close to the nucleus to hybridise, so I'm not sure something like this would occur physically - linked paper appears to be a mathematical exercise, which I can't complain about but I question if it belongs in an applications section. Fishsicles (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just f-orbitals. "We" don't use hybridization very much anymore. It is convenient descriptor in organic chemistry, but that is about it. I dont think that you'll find it in textbooks published in recent decades.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Thank you. I'll do some revision. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming of category Category:Anabolic–androgenic steroids to Category:Androgens

I proposed renaming of Category:Anabolic–androgenic steroids to Category:Androgens. See discussion here: Categories for discussion, 2025 July 18, renaming of category "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids" to Category:Androgens. HertzDonuts (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Enos Kiremire

Will someone please take a look at this draft and see if they agree with me? I moved it from article space to draft space because the description of his contribution to theory, Discovery of natural laws of chemical clusters doesn't seem right. I first wondered when I read that the discovery of the atomic number Z let scientists put elements into rows and columns. The atomic number clarified the discovery of the rows and columns that Mendeleev had made based on the atomic weight, but you all knew that. Then it says that the discovery of the skeletal number K in 2015 made it possible to arrange compounds and elements into groups. I had just retired in 2015 and hadn't mostly been doing chemistry, but I think I would have known about any major discoveries in chemistry. The only number called a skeletal number in chemistry that I have found is the number of carbon atoms in a chain, which has nothing to do with water.

Can someone put a positive spin on this draft, or is this an effort to confuse non-scientists by misusing scientific terminology? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support your draftification. With an h-factor of 10, 290 total citations and no major awards there is zero evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF. If in the future the community accepts his ideas his citations will shoot up and he can be revisited. I am 100% certain the current page would die a quick death at AfD.

N.B., for fun I checked source [7] which is standard ab-initio. I could not find "skeletal" anywhere in it. I also don't see any RS for the claims of his discoveries. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that WP:NPROF is unlikely to be met. His books are available through Amazon but are published by Lambert Academic, which our article calls a predatory vanity publisher. One of the citations in the biography (based on an interview) claims that over 10 million copies of his books sold internationally but that he has received nothing: both claims seem very dubious to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding a lack of WP:NPROF. Reading an available paper of his, doi:10.5539/ijc.v8n4p78, shows nothing particularly special about "skeletal numbers" - which just count the CO:M ratio of a homoleptic carbonyl complex. Certainly nothing comparable to periodisation. That he treats quadruply bonded dicarbon as a "simple example" also... does not fill me with confidence. Fishsicles (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This case looks open-and-shut but is thought provoking in some ways Looks like he's (self)publishing low level maths on stuff (clusters) that was dealt with many decades ago. That style is what people do when they are very ambitious and very deprived (read: Namibia). Weepiness is no route to notability. However, Wikichem probably has no profiles of any black chemist practicing in Africa. So, maybe we give some thought to Chemistry in Africa or Science in Africa. Sounds awkward, I know. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We are all in agreement that the article does not belong in article space, although we have different concerns. My concern was that his stated advance sounded like pseudo-science. My reading of the paper that was linked to reinforces that assessment. I don't know what he is saying in the paper. My degree in chemistry was 56 years ago, but I don't think that the field has changed so much that I wouldn't understand the basics of a paper, unless I recognized that it was a highly specialized area that I know I don't know, and this is not that. I have read pseudo-scientific physics papers and biology (usually anti-evolution) papers, but I think that this is the first such paper that I have read on chemistry.

I wasn't concerned about whether he satisfied academic notability, because I was concerned about the technical gibberish.

If the article goes into article space again, it should go directly to AFD. An article should only be sent back to draft space once; any subsequent concerns should go to AFD. We shall see what happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few practicing African chemists here already, looking through the categories. Oluwole Babafemi Familoni and Marian Asantewah Nkansah being among them. While not shining examples of Wikipedia biographies they are in better condition than this draft. -- Recon rabbit 14:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycations and editor Johnjbarton

I noticed that this article was nominated for deletion by the named editor a short time ago. From that discussion it is clear no one else really supported his view (which he articulated vehemently) and that the concept and specific instances were verifiable. I therefore decided it ought to be restored, and that I would start an outline, taking the lead from Oxyanion and giving an order list of examples, linked to the article we already have on that ion if possible (this was how it once was).

The article now, indeed, is a useless stub, but it is so only because of Johnjbarton's continued deletions of matter he doesn't consider to meet his idea of proper sourcing; the removal of the list of wikilinks in his last edit may have been by mistake, but it would be very careless not to notice. Certainly here there is no need here to have sources on everything immediately, a demand that clearly frustrated the creation of a useful article on a topic we should have, thus harming Wikipedia. There is no doubt of the existence of sources, though I only kept those already there; I deliberately did not add any more at this time. From now until further notice, any deletion of material by Johnjbarton from the article will be reverted without further explanation; anyone else is free to discuss and edit.

It is not as if Oxyanion is perfect, either, the lead states "Oxyanions are formed by a large majority of the chemical elements." sourced to Greenwood&Earnshaw with no page given, which I wouldn't consider well-sourced. This was followed by a plainly wrong statement I just removed. Finally I should mention, with regard to the title, that oxocation, oxycations, and oxocations (which I searched first) should certainly redirect to it, as the corresponding terms do for Oxyanion. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant who ultimately !voted Keep, I think this is an egregious misreading of @Johnjbarton's contributions to the article / deletion discussion. It also reads dangerously close to a personal attack, stapled to an assertion that you'll disregard WP policy on edit warring. I would recommend against doing this if you want to maintain edit access. WP:BRD describes what you should do instead: have a considerate and patient discussion with John on the article talk page.

I would also advise against adding unsourced information. In my view, it should be possible to improve the article using four of the sources previously identified by @Cyclopia: Porterfield (1993), Deeth (1991), Selbin (1964), and Selbin (1966). Preimage (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into John several times already since I started editing in this area, and while I would, certainly, prefer that discussion be resolved that way, have found him impossible to have a productive discussion with. Others may have had different experiences, but probably I should not be judged that harshly when I have already tried. I agree that those sources are probably appropriate, but I can't realistically access most sources not available free online, and don't think I should try to add citations to sources I haven't seen. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:D13A (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly here there is no need here to have sources on everything immediately, a demand that clearly frustrated the creation of a useful article on a topic we should have - As another keep !voter, nope: there is a need for material to be sourced when it is inserted. We give some leeway sometimes, but if something isn't sourced usually it does not belong here. WP:V is one of our core policies. Removing unsourced stuff is good, and for the love of what's holy do not add unsourced material. cyclopia ^speak! 14:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit too combative in my wording, I admit, because I was still thinking of Johnjbarton and not others that might reply, which I didn't expect to get immediately. I do try to avoid adding unsourced material (at least by my definition) and the word 'deliberately' may have given the wrong impression. But as you acknowledge there is some leeway, a page does not have to be in a perfectly sourced state all the time (that's why we have ^{[citation needed]} and similar), and I think this is one such exception since something is better than nothing. I didn't add a whole lot of unsourced material, I meant only to make the page presentable, so that it would look better than not having it - which, as you voted Keep, I assume you do not desire. I did not think that this (the version that had been in place since the AfD) gave a good impression, and the state of sourcing is not the main reason; that's not the first thing someone is going to see; the version I put in its place is surely an improvement in that regard. I can find sources for specific ions that don't have any yet, but in general I hoped that others such as you would expand it, once I got it started and raised the issue, or at the least would not allow it to return to such a state.

I am focused right now on completing the isotopes update, which is tedious even without dealing with sourcing, and was not anticipating devoting a lot of time to this - and as your time is not infinite either, I think I can stop here, having made the main points.

I also must thank the person that immediately added the redirects! 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:D13A (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxycation was no consensus to delete. I don't understand what the issue is now. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycation is terminology used for some inorganic compounds, often by non-inorganic chemists. It is harmless but we might as well include it. Only few binary molecular oxycations are used much (NO⁺ and NO₂⁺ come to mind as biggies). Most so-called oxycations have ligands glommed all over the metal (like titanyl, vanadyl), hence the terminology is almost mirthful or misleading in some ways. Also notable are the non-binary oxycations like MeCO+ (acylium) and ClCO+ invoked in Friedel-Crafts. Some astrochemists might have identified some binary oxycations in the interstellar medium. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are strongly objectionable. First, they completely change the focus of the article, which, for an article you knew was under discussion, should not have been done without notification first. And they appear to be promoting your personal view on what 'oxycations' are over anything sourced - on the respective pages we have sources explicitly acknowledging the existence of vanadyl, uranyl and others. Of course, they are not 'naked' in solids or solutions, nor would you expect them to be (like polyvalent metal cations). But they are sufficiently stable apart from other ligands to be considered discrete ions (like the same metal ions), and are acknowledged as such by many sources; in the AfD discussion there was no dispute on the essential nature of the subject, nor did any of the provided sources do so, nor would one expect any source to do so, because the very word contains 'ion' and should not be applied to radicals having no existence as ions. I was careful, in compiling my list, to include only (to the best of my imperfect knowledge) those for which there was sufficient reason to believe could exist as ions in solids or solutions (condensed phases), and not e.g. chromyl.

Yes, it is reasonable to mention that oxycation-like terminology is used for compounds that are not sensibly considered ionic, or are very little so. It is also reasonable to mention salts of oxycations (and that they may not be entirely ionic), as is already done on pages for individual ions. But not as a replacement for the main topic! The definition of oxycation, which I did not make up, requires only oxo ligands, so ions/radicals containing halogen and organic ones like acyl don't belong either. A possible exception is those where the bond to the oxo ligand is clearly and significantly more firm that that to any other ligand (the latter of which can be replaced), as can be found in some of the sources; note that acylium ions don't work that way.

Finally, your edits contained numerous visible formatting errors, and at least one outright blunder (AcO2+ instead of UO2+ as the source clearly reads), and it should not be the responsibility of others to take the time to fix these. I'll have to fix some of these, and if you will not discuss it, start from scratch by reverting all your edits, then adding the new information that is worth something - making sure, as I do, NOT to break formatting or references. 2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 Please review Wikipedia:Civility. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Discuss content, not editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing content, and find your jumping in here to attack me dubious. Why does it always have to be personal when you get involved? 2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These aspects of your post are not about content and create an uncivil atmosphere:

"Your edits are strongly objectionable."
"...they appear to be promoting your personal view..."
"Finally, your edits contained numerous visible formatting errors,..."

Regarding: I was discussing content, and find your jumping in here to attack me dubious. Why does it always have to be personal when you get involved? You posted my name in the title of this topic, so I don't think I am jumping in. I am getting personal to join the other editors in encouraging you to please take a different approach. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the standard you apply to me, then, you are being uncivil. And surely if anything possible incivility in an honest attempt to discuss the improvement of an article is less culpable than the same done only to hurt. (And I don't think any of those are reasonably seen as personal attacks on Smokefoot.) 2601:441:8500:B870:E0BA:CF17:F8D7:7D9C (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry tag for AfD

I have (fingers and toes crossed that I did it right) added "Chemistry" as an AfD category when creating one. Entries should appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Chemistry if this option is used. Note that this is different from the AfD sorting page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should synthesis methods be given for psychoactive / controlled compounds?

Talk:Βk-2C-B - Wikipedia

Featured article review for Shale oil extraction

I have nominated Shale oil extraction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy (?) Reactionbox template creating categories

The template {{Reactionbox}} is creating a Category from the entry in the "Type". I came across this first for ZACA reaction, but it is also in Stille reaction and probably others. I don't think we should have editors/templates creating semi-random categories like this; I found it indirectly from Category:Transition metal catalyzed organometallic functionalizations that was created by ZACA. Template editing is not my expertise, over to someone else... Ldm1954 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template should not do this, per WP:TEMPLATECAT. The process to fix it is to manually apply the relevant category to each affected article, then remove the categorization code from the template. I'll be happy to do the second part if you ping me when the first part is done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, reaction boxes are not very useful and almost pointless. Focusing on just one aspect: the true origins of many reactions are often obscure, and assigning discovery reinforces the prominence of "named reactions". The practice, which is prevalent in organic chemistry, also puts much emphasis on attribution to individuals. Inorganic and materials chemists rarely name our reactions. Also the "reaction type" is not useful. Reductive amination is described as "coupling reaction". Who is the authority that classifies reactions? My guess is that reaction boxes originated with the success of ChemBoxes, but it doesnt work for me. Maybe I will regret these harsh comments.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for more responses, but since there have not been any I will respond. Please delete the part of the code that is doing this. If there is a category needed then people can add them; I only did a BA in Chemistry many years ago, so I don't know what (if any) categories the reactions that use this box should go in. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the code that adds the category. I didn't change the documentation because I couldn't find a mention of the feature there. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Svartner (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Molecular form" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Molecular form 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 September 10 § Molecular form until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines for compounds

Lately I've been thinking about having some kind of framework for notability of compounds, as seen for other topics in WikiProject notability advice. WP:NUMBER is the sort of framework I would take inspiration from: a series of questions that can loosely establish either notability or a lack thereof. I'm inclined to lean for inclusion rather than against in most edge cases, but I'm sure people disagree - and hashing out the concept in general can be a useful reference for those cases as they arise. Fishsicles (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Developing some consensus on notability of chemical compounds is an admirable idea but probably a doomed effort. Often it seems, when a very chemical theme is AfD'd, suddenly out of nowhere arrive editors thoroughly knowledgeable of rules and regs but ignorant of the chemical literature. Any effort would be thwarted by these virtuous souls. ~~Anyway, it's not that big of a deal because dumb articles don't interfere with our main mission~~.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to change the rules and regs is to propose an alternative, though. If all we can cite are the informal expectations of different WP:CHEM editors, nobody's going to really pay much mind - but having an internal standard is the best first step to suggesting actual official guidelines/policies through the proposal process. Fishsicles (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Writing this when I'm tired, hopefully this isn't too long-winded and makes enough sense]

Thanks @Fishsicles, I'm glad you raised this. Ultimately, I think it would be helpful to have a WP:SNG for (non-medical) scientific topics. I agree the best place for WP:CHEM to start would be to develop a topic-specific WikiProject notability guidance page, albeit these tend to be less influential for AfDs (as they are treated as essays [that] do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines).

The usefulness and distinctiveness criteria mentioned in your 19:07, 5 September 2025 userpage note seem reasonable to me. I also came across the essay WP:How Wikipedia notability works (full disclosure: authored by an unsuccessful RfA election candidate), which argues that, in practice, WP assesses notability using three broad criteria: source availability, importance, and encyclopedicness. It suggests SNGs can help with assessments of importance / encyclopedicness, and can sometimes also set up alternate criteria [or alternate assessment systems for criteria] for topics where GNG is not commonly used or usable.

As per @Smokefoot, I think low-quality articles on obscure topics should be relatively harmless as long as they don't violate other core policies/practices (e.g. FRINGE, BLP, POV forks). But notability guidelines also play a role in training/shaping WP's community of editors. I gather there have been cases in the past (e.g. ROADS) where subcommunities of editors have diverged far enough from the expected norms, for long enough, that the inevitable correction has caused significant conflict, disruption, and editor loss (understandably so, when editors have put so much work into articles prior to their en masse removal). To quote from Slate's article on WP:ROADS:

One flashpoint that inspired the recent revolt was a strict interpretation of the site’s reliable sourcing policy. ... A volunteer editor seeking to contribute content to the page might use information found on the West Virginia Department of Transportation’s website as a reference source. However, policy sticklers are likely to deny this usage because DOT is a primary source for highways ... According to the site’s policies, Wikipedia should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers. ... Why not allow Wikipedians to cite from DOT, which is responsible for publishing highway routes? ... it’s worth remembering that most of the time Wikipedia has good reasons for the prohibition against primary sources, especially with government entities. ... The question is whether there is some way to recognize an exemption, granting that some types of primary sources may be reliable while still protecting the integrity of the rule.

In particular, I was struck by the recent AfD comment (from a fellow science editor) We have a long standing general consensus to keep stuff covered by multiple reliable academic sources, even if they are considered technically primary. I can imagine situations where this would be warranted. E.g. if secondary sources exist, indicate a topic is notable, do not provide sufficient detail to write a non-stub article, but multiple independent primary sources exist and are broadly in agreement (a scenario which is much more likely for scientific topics), it should be possible to collate information from primary sources without falling foul of WP:SYNTH or WP:DUEWEIGHT. But the more frequently we deviate from GNG guidelines, the more important I think it is to explain/codify our reasoning. I'd like us to start doing that, beyond the limited scope for discussion provided by individual AfDs. Preimage (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interesting to bring in the supporters of 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene: @Cyclopia, Dclemens1971, My very best wishes, and Very Polite Person:. I retract my comment that dumb articles (e.g., 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene) are harmless. They become intertwined (linked, cited) into legit articles, which confuses readers who think that we are providing notable information vs some lame crap. The other thing is that this exercise in self-citations encourages losers to dump more %$& onto Wikipedia in an effort to gain a modicum notability as authors (bibiometric tools at journal sites recognize Wikipedia mentions). As one criterion for the proposed notability would be that the article is not based on self-citation thing, as is 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My (quick) $0.02: whatever standards are set on a subject-matter level like this for more particular notability conditions, are, remember, supplemental or alternative paths TO notability, or guidance on interpretation of notability against WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, et al. A per-topic guidance framework, even ridiculously over-the-top ones like WP:FRINGE, are wholly subservient and lessor to, in all circumstances, WP:GNG. Even WP:MEDRS, which anyone sane supports, will factually lose 100% of battles in a straight up fight vs rote WP:GNG (as it should; as should any of them).

If the question is: can we make it a little harder to get stuff into Wikipedia in some context like this? The answer is and must be no.

If the question is: can we make it more clear what is considered WP:RS for things derivative of or created by chemical synthesis broadly defined? Sure, lots of topics do that. You'd just need to carve up and build out ideas, and then refine them in a few RFC type fires. Just remember: no matter who tight you may or may not try to make it, anyone, me, you, a stranger, can blow up any opposition by simply dropping several WP:SIGCOV level WP:RS, and walk away whistling. I've done that on a few AfDs that I suspect left heads scratching. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above that is really delicious (or kinda self-canonization): "If the question is: can we make it a little harder to get stuff into Wikipedia in some context like this? The answer is and must be no." Also, one might add, have you stopped beating your wife? Which books have your burned today? And in what ways do you support slavery?--Smokefoot (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm supporting the idea of refining the standards or carving them out. I was just explaining that if it was the goal to make it more restrictive (which I'm not objecting to) then it would be around defining what counts as RS in the first place, like how MEDRS handles it. Just emulate that approach. I was just saying it can't be done by making it simply harder from a GNG/BASIC POV. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course rules being discussed would make it more difficult to "get stuff into Wikipedia." What else could a rule do? The effect would be incremental and net beneficial, at least that is the intent. Yes, one always worries about "slippery slopes" etc. But anyway, sincere thanks for the advice. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 99.872% sure we're on the same page and would prefer the same outcome. I was just trying to say the smoothest route would be the chemistry equivalent of MEDRS. Launch your ship from Miami aimed for Lisbon, but tweak the heading a fraction of a degree off and you end up in the Med. Having WP:CHEMRS (I will !vote Support for WP:CHEMRS to be the name) would help make sure most ships get to Lisbon or their intended destination--accuracy.

Sorry, I get verbose. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some specific guideline might be helpful. Obviously, not everything in PubChem qualify for inclusion. One can reasonably argue that a compound should be included if (a) it is described in several publications, and (b) there is a substantial information about the compound to be included in the page. Speaking on 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene, I think it satisfies (a). As about (b), this is something debatable. One can say it does not satisfy (b). One of important criteria could be inclusion of a compound into tertiary sources, such as encyclopedia or even reputable databases. Would everything in Merck Index qualify automatically for inclusion? Maybe. Everything from the Human Metabolome Database, i.e. [[4]]? I am not sure. Everything from DrugBank? Yes, probably. Assuming that there are also publications about the compound in scientific journals. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what needs to be codified most is when primary sources are appropriate for establishing notability. In particular, I would say primary sources that are about a compound itself are less important than primary sources using a compound to achieve some end.

To use one of my own AfCs as an example, sodium tetrapropylborate: I'd started looking into it mostly on a whim as it is isoelectronic to tetrapropylammonium. The De Smaele et al ref (doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(97)00886-8) is about the compound: if this was the only paper I'd found going into it in any depth, I'd probably have ditched the draft. Chemists make new compounds with Amazing Potential™ all the time and I'm not interested in hyping up someone else's grant applications. It's useful for establishing properties of the compound, but not establishing notability.

Huang et al (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.015) has a specific use of the compound (and establishes that it's commercially available to researchers, a fact that in of itself raises notability to me) - this isn't a silver bullet, but is a much stronger notability point even if it doesn't have as many topic-specific details compared to the about paper. Schubert et al (doi:10.1007/s002160050072) is about using the compound, and moreover a comparison to a related compound - this sort of paper is to me the "strongest" kind of source for notability short of a proper literature review.

...of course, now that I've said all this, I feel like going on another dive for that page once I get back to my journal access computer... Fishsicles (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Very Polite Person: «If the question is: can we make it a little harder to get stuff into Wikipedia in some context like this? The answer is and must be no.» As they correctly stated, any further guideline would only supplement or clarify WP:GNG, not substitute it. That said, I reject the concept that (sourced) obscure compounds are not encyclopedic or even "lame crap". When I first started contributing to WP more than 20 years ago, I did it for its WP:PURPOSE: «free access to the sum of all human knowledge». If there are reliable sources on anything, be it a chemical compound or else, we can include it, and if we can include it we should include it.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that WP:GNG is rooted firmly in secondary sources, and that there's not good secondary sources for many compounds that I would argue are notable. The question that is most relevant to this issue is "what kind of primary sources establish notability for chemical compounds, and to what degree?". Many chemical articles are rooted mostly or solely in primary sources, which would make none of them notable under a strict reading of WP:GNG - which is obviously not the goal. The question I think is not "How do we make it harder to get things into Wikipedia (compared to GNG)?" but rather the concurrent questions "How much easier should we make it to get things into Wikipedia (compared to GNG)?" and "How much harder should we make it to get things into Wikipedia (compared to current informal process)?" Fishsicles (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be relatively straightforward. If you could amend WP:RS directly just for purposes of what sort or caliber of primary sources is sufficient for defining notability of chemical substances on Wikipedia...

What's the gold standard? What's the minimum floor? What specific two sources, as an example?

Tailor a version 0 draft against that: ID examples. Agree on two examples. Tailor initial outline and sketch describing sources that would include both of those sources, but "likely" cut off anything beneath the floor source. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this, Fishsicles. I was a bit carried out because de facto, academic papers, while being formally primary sources, are considered equally as secondary across a wide range of scientific fields. Species, for example, or astronomical objects. WP:NASTCRIT could be a starting point if we need to make this explicit. cyclopia ^speak! 20:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:NASTCRIT as a solid foundation, though there's obviously some practical differences.

The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye.
This one to me says "things should be significant outside of the field's interest in discovering new things". I would probably propose "the compound is or was commercally available in meaningful volume".
The object is listed in a catalogue of high historical importance
There's not really historical equivalent of astronomical catalogues for chemicals, as it took us a lot longer to figure out what chemicals were, but some level of "known and significant in historical records" is probably worth having. Is there a WikiProject Alchemy?
The object has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object.
This is probably where the haggling is to be done. I'd say "multiple non-trivial published works" needs a chemical caveat of "from different labs" - in particular, while a source on the first preparation or characterisation of a compound is useful for preparation and properties of that compound, I don't think it should be counted towards notability.
The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.
I don't think this directly translates at all as it's hard to "automate" discovery of chemicals. I suppose "discovered prior to modern chemistry" is also a criterion for notability, but that fits more into the "significant in history" rather than its own line.

Fishsicles (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is what does "primary" mean. Because most of our articles are about people or organisations, we don't want to use sources where people write about themselves, or where organisations issue a press release about themselves. These are primary sources. However chemicals do not write about themselves, and theoretically at least have some existence. However if one person writes about a chemical, we would want it to be confirmed by another writer. Many chemical articles have a mini-review at the start, summarizing previous work. So I would recommend that notability is proved where independent people write about that chemical topic. Even for chemicals that don't exist, but are in chemists imagination, there may be notability if several articles are on the topic. However most of the prod and AFDs I have started for chemicals are for those that do not exist. On this board we have discussed some unsuitable sources. These would not be reliable sources. Some databases such as PubChem and ChemSpider do not prove notability, as they have entries for all sorts of stuff, including errors and things that do not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inclusion to PubChem and ChemSpider do not prove notability of any compounds, although the inclusion to DrugBank might be. The only reason for keeping 1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene could be its studied anti-fungal activity. This is on the borderline of notability, I agree. It could be deleted or kept, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to relitigate a recent AfD too much, but I'd argue against potential applications as a criterion for notability unless very widely studied. Everything has potential applications. If a compound can be developed to the extent that it's competitive with existing compounds, it should get an article once that hits the market, not while it's in basic research.

(Shout out to my absolute favourite Wikipedia redirect, applications of graphene.) Fishsicles (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the goal of this effort should not be to make it harder (or easier) to get articles into WP, but rather easier to determine notability in our specific subject area, and harder for articles that meet our specific standards to get AfDeleted. I agree that a key part of this is determining RS for our subject area, and to codify appropriate use of primary sources. Eventually this should make it into a Chen-specific RS guideline and N guideline, to be accepted as part of the general WP standards. But a good first step is to hash something out in our project space so we as a project are agreed on how the general WP standards should be enhanced and we are reasonably confident that it would be accepted as part of the general standards. YBG (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pKa, you know what I mean...

A perceptive editor complained that the pKa listed for diphenylamine is really the pKa of its conjugate acid. That kind of "you know what I mean" thing can be confusing. So, I doctored up the entry in the chembox (format police allowed that), but there may be a more elegant approach to this problem (definining that pKa for amines often refers to conjugate acid). Also, I wonder how pervasive is this issue? --Smokefoot (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The {{chembox}} template accepts pKb. Couldn't that be used instead? Seems better to report the basicity of a base, rather than the acidity of the base's conjugate acid. Marbletan (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't organic chemistry almost universally taught from the perspective of pKa for acid-base equilibria? For that, I think it's a little more useful to record a pKa. Though nothing really wrong with reporting both (like Ethylamine), unless space is at a premium.

In this case I would format it as: 0.79 (conjugate acid, Ph₂NH+2), but that is basically the same thing. I like the addition of the chemical formula for clarity, most of the time it is omitted like Aniline. ⇌ Synpath 01:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the best solution is to have a separate argument in chembox that determines if the pKa line is titled as just "pKa" or as "pKa (conj. acid)" for amines etc. (It should probably also have a check requiring that if the "conjugate pKa" line is used, a conjugate acid formula is provided in the chembox.) Fishsicles (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just a semantics issue ... for both pKa and pKb it is not about the acid or its conjugate base, it is about the equilibrium between the two and a proton in a certain media. For the chembox, that is generally water at 25°C, where it is then an interplay between the subject acid and subject base and not a 'free' proton but the 'hydrated' proton. I think that the link to acidity in front of it does it all, it does not need the explanation. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as things stand, there are a heap of inconsistencies between WP articles. I'll start with a quick look at simple polyprotic acids. Sulfuric acid's infobox reads pK_a1 = −2.8 [line break] pK_a2 = 1.99, whereas phosphoric acid has no mention of any pK_a values in its infobox, instead reporting pK_a1 to pK_a3 in the article body.

Hydrazine's infobox reads pK_a = 8.10 ([N₂H₅]⁺) [with citation] and pK_b = 5.90, with article body reporting pK_b values for both N₂H₄ and [N₂H₅]⁺. (It would probably be an improvement to refer to these as pK_b1 and pK_b2 for hydrazine.)

The most complicated example I found was arginine, whose infobox currently reads pK_a = 2.18 (carboxyl), 9.09 (amino), 13.8 (guanidino). While this conflates the pK_a of arginine with its conjugate acid and base, it's the cleanest way of presenting its acid-base (buffer) properties. I get the argument we should be reporting pK_b for bases rather than pK_a for their conjugate acids, but for arginine that would mean we'd have to list pK_b1(amino), pK_b2(guanidino), and pK_a(carboxyl), which I think is going to be more confusing in practice. (And the isoelectric point is going to be more of a pain to calculate if we do things this way.)

If we needed to be absolutely precise, I guess we could say the conjugate acid of arginine (ArgH⁺) is a triprotic acid, with pK_a1(ArgH⁺) = 2.18 (carboxyl: −COOH ⇌ −COO⁻ + H⁺), pK_a2(ArgH⁺) = 9.09 (amino: −NH+3 ⇌ −NH₂ + H⁺), and pK_a3(ArgH⁺) = 13.8 (guanidino: −NHC(NH₂)+2 ⇌ −NHC(NH)NH₂ + H⁺). Though I doubt that's going to fit in the infobox :) Preimage (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having an annotation in the infobox if the value is actually for the conjugate acid. I strongly oppose my interpretation of Fishsicles's parenthetical about "formula is provided in the chembox" because we universally try to avoid including details of "compound B" in the infobox for "compound A" on the article that is focused on compound A, and especially because it's only for purposes of clarifying one infobox item. Instead, I'd support a parenthetical or similar note specifically in that one infobox item, such as "conjugate acid" in the title (which can be usefully linked), and something more specific (parenthetical on the value) if there are several to distinguish from each other. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My parenthetical is more in reference the existing Template:Chembox Properties conjugate acid/base entry, not an additional field. If the pKa is defined as that of the conjugate acid, it should probably warn if there's no entry on the conjugate acid in the template. Fishsicles (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fact check for categorisation

I've been cleaning up the chemical categories on Simple English, with a goal of matching (where enough pages exist) the categorisation here on enwiki. One thing I've noticed, though, is that we count Category:Diazepines under Category:Aromatic nitrogen heterocycles. Now, it's been a while since I did heteroaromatics in any particular detail, but this fails the Huckel smell test to me - shouldn't diazepines be antiaromatic? They've got two more pi electrons than imidazole. Is there a corner case here I'm forgetting re: the lone pair on the NH? Fishsicles (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Aromatic". So now nitrogen heterocylcles Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dibenzodiazepines had the same mis-categorization. But it wasn't even a subcat of Category:Diazepines, whereas

Category:Benzodiazepines is. So now that's all fixed. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Organolithium reagent#Requested move 10 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Organolithium reagent#Requested move 10 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 18:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formula parameter in {{Chembox}}

Please weigh in on Should the Hill notation be prefered in the Chembox formula entry? by visiting that page and replying there. Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another categorisation fact check

The enwiki Category:Imides is categorised under Category:Lactams. While many imides of interest are cyclic, and AFAIK IUPAC nomenclature uses "diacylamine" for acyclic imides, the functional group itself is defined as including any RCO−NR−COR (but "especially" cyclic compounds). Wiki pages seem inconsistent as to which standard is applied.

The main pages for both imide and diacetamide refer to the latter as an imide, but it is only classified under Category:Acetamides. Phenacemide, meanwhile, is an acyclic imide that is in the category - and is very much not a lactam.

For Wikipedia purposes, is Category:Imides meant to contain all di/triacylamines, or only cyclic ones? If the former, it should not be classified under lactams, and pruned of the acyclic compounds; if the latter, should we have Category:Cyclic imides that implies lactams? In either case, the category description(s) should probably specify. Fishsicles (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow IUPAC, where "imide" is not necessarily cyclic; having an subcat "cyclic imides" intersection of "lactams"+"imides", each of which are subcats of "carboxamides" makes sense. And also per IUPAC, "imide" is specifically diacyl. If we have any triacyl articles, that could go in a sister-cat of "imides" as a subcat of "carboxamides". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are cylcic imides even lactams? Can a cyclic anhydride be a lactone, a linear anhydride as an ester? I doubt it is useful to subdivide functional groups like this. ⇌ Synpath 18:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The convention I am familiar with is that "lactams and cyclic imides" can be grouped together like that, rather than the latter as a type of the former. That said, it's not something I can point to a particular definition for, so I'm inclined to bow to existing wiki taxonomy until a more formal definition shows up one way or another.

If I were writing from scratch, I'd be inclined to keep them separate, on the grounds that we don't normally call amides amines even if it still has the C−N bond - but again, nothing formal I can point to that decides things "properly". Fishsicles (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it seems reasonable to make Category:Cyclic imides and include a hatnote or some other mention to Category:Lactams (as you suggested). That would let us follow IUPAC while including the relation to lactams and not imply they are overlapping sets. ⇌ Synpath 22:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed by functional-group definition, acid-anhydrides are not esters, and imides are not amides and neither of them are amines (amides and imides are derivatives of amines). But many specific compounds are named as if they were, via the derivative/substituent concept (example: N-acylethanolamine is an amide). How about using Commons cats as a basis, which means easier interwiki mapping. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons cats tosses a new wrench into the works: they don't put imides under lactams, but they do call imides secondary amides. Which only makes sense to me (mathematician brain wants universal rules) if amides are considered amines. (And I agree they're not!)

I think chemistry categories in general have an issue of not distinguishing "member of a class" from "derivative of a class". I've noticed a few hydrogenated heterocycles being grouped under their aromatic parent, with levamisole being a recent case - it was categorised under Category:Imidazothiazoles, despite both rings being partly or wholly saturated. It's clearly a derivative of an imidazothiazole, but it's equally clearly not one itself.

I haven't gone on a whole big hunt for them because I suspect that the terms get fuzzy when looking at chemical definitions versus pharmacological definitions? But still, if tetrahydrofuran isn't in Category:Furans (and I don't think it should be!), complex hydrogenated aromatics also shouldn't be in their categories from where I sit. Fishsicles (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Category:Cyanohydrin esters on the list of derivative versus member - they're listed under Category:Cyanohydrins, but very much aren't hydroxy compounds. (That category raises other questions, since it's just a supercategory with only one very specific subcategory...) Fishsicles (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glucuronide esters?

I took it upon myself to clean up some of the subcategories of Category:Esters, grouping them based on the shared component, and noticed Category:Glucuronide esters. As glucuronic acid is polyfunctional, I went to check if this was "esters of the carboxylic acid group on glucuronic acid" or "esters of the hydroxyls on glucuronic acid", only to discover the answer was apparently neither: a randomly selected page, codeine-6-glucuronide, showed me that the compound in question was a glycoside of glucuronic acid, without any visible ester groups. Ditto estradiol 3-glucuronide, estrone glucuronide, scutellarin.

Are glycosides esters, rather than ethers? Is there something special about glucuronic acid derivatives specifically that warrants classifying these seemingly esterless compounds as esters? Am I losing my mind? Fishsicles (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It seems to me that everything in Category:Glucuronide esters should be in Category:Glucuronides. I'll to notify the editor that created the category and moved articles from Glucuronides to Glucuronide esters (@AlyInWikiWonderland:). Marbletan (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, it might relate to glucuronidation. That is an important process, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this is a valid Category. Project Osprey (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Glucuronide esters is a category filled with incorrect entries - glucuronidation is a glycosidation reaction, not an ester-forming one. Glucuronides have a free carboxylic acid group and could in principle form esters, but glucuronides themselves are not esters. I suspect people got confused about which end of glucuronic acid forms the chemical bond in a glucuronide. I don't see any actual glucuronic acid ester article in Category:Glucuronide esters Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above, I have moved the articles that were in Category:Glucuronide esters to Category:Glucuronides. Category:Glucuronide esters is now empty and has been nominated for deletion. Marbletan (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carbohydrate vs Saccharide

I am looking for advice on splitting out almost all saccharide, disaccharide, polysaccharide info out of carbohydrate. See Talk:Carbohydrate#Split proposal. Carbohydrate and the saccharide articles overlap significantly. What would be left in carbohydrate would be dietary and related health info. I'm unsure what to do with modified saccharides.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As summarized at Talk:Carbohydrate: Glycobiology redirects to Carbohydrate, Glycan redirects to Glycoconjugate (even though glycan is the same thing as a polysaccharide, workers in the area seem to use the term in the context of hybrids such as glycoprotein/glycolipids), most mono-, di-, oligo-, and polysaccharide has been pulled out of carbohydrate and redirected to those four articles, history was mostly removed from sugar to history of sugar. Carbohydrate is more of an overview with emphasis on food.

Our portfolio in this area is hopefully less confusing. The nomenclature seems almost as complicated as the structures. One problem is that sucrose and glucose are dominant on the minds of most editors, but they may not so dominant in biochemistry and biology. A related challenge is contextualizing the role of high fructose corn syrup. Other editors are welcome to comment.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical compound categories in set categories

I noticed most of the Wikipedia categories named after chemical compounds are in the set categories of their corresponding chemical compound. This introduces issues like this guy being considered an organic compound with 1 carbon atom, as his article, through a long chain of categories, is in the methane category. This is why set categories shouldn't mix with topic categories and we should remove all topic categories from the chemical set categories. I'd like some help chipping away at these, so I'm doing a post here. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an official WP policy? If not, I suspect that strictly enforcing this separation will cause more issues than it solves. While I support strong organisation of categories within a topic (e.g. my multiple posts earlier about functional group categorisation), those are non-trivial distinctions relevant to someone who might be browsing e.g. Category:Esters. If someone is looking at a category describing chemical compounds, and gets a list of chemical compounds, it's important that all those chemical compounds are accurate! But anyone who is looking into a list of compounds should know to exclude a man from Liverpool unless they are going into existential questions. On the other hand, someone looking for e.g. general background on alkanes probably doesn't want to look in two different places, one strictly for their chemistry and one for everything else. To me, you should be able to get to a category named Methane from a category named Hydrocarbons, because the category Methane is about a hydrocarbon even if everything in it isn't a hydrocarbon itself. Fishsicles (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a guideline. For that use case it's convenient to have those articles there, but it pollutes search results with deepcat and other automated browsing methods. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as the responsibility of the developers of the automated tool. In my opinion, the concern of contributors should always first and foremost be people browsing Wikipedia directly. If the set category/topic category distinction is important for the backend, there should be a way to explicitly distinguish them in the frontend, e.g. an argument in the [[Category:]] tag, that does not impose restrictions on content and organisation from the user side. Fishsicles (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searchability is important for maintaining Wikipedia. I was searching through articles about chemicals to try and find ones without structure diagrams, but there were so many people, products and companies in the results that I was having a hard time. It seems to me that the most painless way to fix issues like this is to take these 100 or so topic categories out of set categories, rather than develop a new argument for the category tag that then needs to be added to all the same pages. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit off-topic, but would Category:Chembox articles without image be helpful for you here? (Can use search if you need to narrow down further, e.g. carbon-containing non-drug non-proteins.) Preimage (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crotyl compounds; naming and notability for functional groups

Crotyl group has a singular citation, to Merriam-Webster. Category:Crotyl compounds has two pages I might consider notable, crotylsarin and crotylbarbital, but both need pretty substantial expansion. Compared to the other Category:Alkenyl groups, this is very sparse. While some other derivatives seem important - crotonyl-CoA, chiefly - I question if the group itself warrants a page.

The main page crotyl group makes some interesting but unsourced claims of delocalisation in the carbanion, which makes intuitive sense to me, though though I'd expect the resonance forms to be the allyl anion-esque R−CH₂−CH=CH−CH−2 and R−CH₂−CH⁻−CH=CH₂, rather than involve "both terminal carbons" as the text describes (I'm assuming they are counting the carbon bound to R as "terminal"?) If this is just the same structure as any other allylic carbanion, I doubt it needs a dedicated section on a dedicated page. Crotylation appears to be a reaction with some presence in the literature, but I've not dived deeply into its applications.

At what point does a group warrant a page outside that of its parent class (in this case, alkenyl group redirecting to alkene)? And if this group passes that threshold, it's a real fixer-upper. Fishsicles (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reticular materials

This page was drafted earlier this year by a user who is likely a student of (now Nobel Prize-winner) Omar M. Yaghi. Jannatulbaqi (talk · contribs) moved it to mainspace, but that account was banned as a sock and had a pattern of accepting AfCs with no apparent review (as described on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar/Archive). The existing content is very promotional and looks more like a grant application than a Wikipedia page. I believe it is too late to redraftify the page. I'm not sure what do do about this.

Omar M. Yaghi has a history of COI edits and the entire Research section needs some help. Maybe an expert, maybe just someone who understands this field of chemistry more than I do. Apocheir (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very obviously AI, with both Sapling.ai & Quillbot being quite certain. However, I don't see blatant AI hallucinations, but I have not checked the sources in detail -- I to do not know the topic. If someone does check and finds evidence for hallucinations then a CSD becomes possible. Otherwise there is the question of whether, in terms of content, this is a WP:CFORK of Metal-organic framework in which case you could send to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD just filed. I have had it up to my eyebrows with science-themed LLM slop on Wikipedia. We have much better things to do with our time than hunt down each and every claim to make sure the cited source actually said it. If the article's creator cares enough about the topic to write an article, let them write the article properly. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will require luck in deleting this thing. Here is the pattern: out of nowhere, editors will arrive at the AfD who are steeped in rules, who know no chemistry, and who are dedicated to an iota of truthiness. They will out-vote and out-argue the best of us.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kitagawa Nobel Prize

Susumu Kitagawa has a couple of problems for a WP:BLP that just won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The Chemistry Prize did not made it to the WP:ITN because of Kitagawa. Can somebody help improving the article? ReyHahn (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? Could you explain what "problems for WP:BLP" means? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that there are several statements not backed up by inline citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a living person. Specially a famous living person with a Nobel Prize (that makes it high importance in the project scale). Everything in his article should be backed by a reference.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]