Template Talk:Chem-stub
Get Template Talk:Chem-stub essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:Chem-stub discussion. Add Template Talk:Chem-stub to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Template Talk:Chem-stub
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(3 more...)

Protic solvent, etc.

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

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

Selenenic acid

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

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

Hexosaminidase#Mechanism of action

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

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

Updating the template about nitrides

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

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

Newbie question: if I find an interesting new route synthesizing a chemical using popflock.com resource links, how shall I proceed?

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

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


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

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

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

Proposed RFC on nonmetal categories


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks EdChem.

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

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

I will be overhauling the Phosphinidene page

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

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

@T2g eg: Great project and thank you! Comments:
  • Spare us your calculations. Wiki does publish primary research. Primary research is removed summarily.
  • Try to focus on reviews and books per our guidelines: WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY.
  • details: the great majority of phosphinidine complexes are clusters, if you havent noticed. Perhaps you might relabel your article complexes of terminal phosphinidines. popflock.com resource has an article Phosphinidene. Be careful with the word "stable". Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on my and my WikiEdu course instructor's understanding, reproducing calculations from primary literature does not constitute as original research.
  • I have included some reviews and books in my reference list, but given how niche the topic is, primary sources are necessary.
  • I kept two sentences about phosphinidene clusters at the end of this section (these were from the previous version of the page), but I am not personally interested in expanding this area. Others are free to contribute to this section.

Update to peer review page

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

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

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

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

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


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

I probably can't judge whether it is notable enough, but I want to point out that one of the links in the "Further Reading" section, though currently broken, leads to a Bloomberg article specifically mentionning rhondite (updated link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1992-01-19/steel-with-much-more-muscle). More secondary and tertiary sources are definitely needed, though. --ElMagyar (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

AFD: Biodegradable athletic footwear

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

Periodic table has an RFC

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

Samarium(III) sulfide

Samarium(III) sulfide came to my attention as an unsourced stub that nonetheless meets our notability guidelines. It appears to be a semiconductor that is mostly studied as a thin film. Example sources include:

  • Kumbhar, V. S.; Jagadale, A. D.; Lokhande, C. D. (15 July 2013). "Supercapacitive evaluation of soft chemically deposited ?-Sm2S3 thin films". Journal of Power Sources. 234: 107-110. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.01.078. ISSN 0378-7753.
  • Marin, Chris M.; Wang, Lu; Brewer, Joseph R.; Mei, Wai-Ning; Cheung, Chin Li (25 June 2013). "Crystalline ?-Sm2S3 nanowires: Structure and optical properties of an unusual intrinsically degenerate semiconductor". Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 563: 293-299. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.02.082. ISSN 0925-8388.
  • Aruga, Atsushi; Tsujimi, Sachiko; Nakai, Izumi (1996). "Crystal Structure of Samarium Sesquisulfide, .ALPHA.-Sm2S3". Analytical Sciences. 12 (1): 151-152. doi:10.2116/analsci.12.151.

I'll be too busy to expand this article right now. -LaundryPizza03 (dc?) 10:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded the article, but in return can you please stop nominating chemical categories for deletion? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Application in a specific protest was added into the article and I do not believe that inclusion of such into the chemical page is WP:DUE. Discussion at Talk:Hexachloroethane Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is The Faraday Institution within your ambit?

They are all about batteries, it seems, and have no WP article. One of their employees has been given the job to write about them, but everything online is all based on their website, press releases, etc. No history seemingly is documented, for instance. However, I would guess that the Institution has archives on hand.

The unfortunate employee may not manage to get an article approved. If anyone out your way happens to be into batteries and history, they may want to help out on Draft Talk:The Faraday Institution or at the draft creator's Talk. In fact, anyone near London could even contact the Institution about their archives and try to gain access to them. risk offending the draft's creator.

I'm from the USA and from the insect and plant world, so I'm not that drawn to writing about the Institution; it just amazes me when something big and prominent is so hard to write about on WP.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Elsevier book

The newly published book is "The Periodic Table: Nature's Building Blocks An Introduction to the Naturally Occurring Elements, Their Origins and Their Uses" By J. Theo Kloprogge, Concepcion P. Ponce, Tom Loomis. isbn=9780128215388, 0128215380. Much of the chemistry content is taken directly from popflock.com resource without attribution. I wrote to the lead author who responded: "We have used many different resources to write our book including the chemistry as reflected in the extensive References and Futher reading lists at the end of the chapter." Note: popflock.com resource is not acknowledged. I also contacted Elsevier, the publisher, but it is a very large organization, so I am not optimistic that they will address the problem. It is inevitable that some losers would eventually repackage and take credit for our content, but it is still unfortunate. What can you do? Not much probably. If anyone has the time to independently inspect on-line versions of the book, you might notify Elsevier of any overlap that you detect. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Better contact some journalists:having an article in a newspaper spotting that problem will force the publisher to react. Snipre (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Some examples of copied or at least closely paraphrased content are in User_talk:Smokefoot#Possible copyright issue with an Elsevier book (should have posted my comment here instead of there) Is there some noticeboard where to report these kinds of plagiarism cases? Obvious WP:CIRCULAR potential here, if someone decides to cite this book when editing Wikipedia. jni(talk)(delete) 16:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote to Retraction Watch. This book is nearly 1000 pages with lots of color images. My guess is that it was expensive to produce. Lead author claims to see no problems. The other two authors did not respond to my query. Elsevier is tough to crack. They dont exactly have a "report plagiarism here" link. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nitraus: Email received this AM from Elsevier: "I wanted to let you know that we investigated the plagiarism claim and found that many large sections throughout the book were taken from popflock.com resource or similar sources, as you indicated. We are in the process of making the book unavailable on all of our platforms and withdrawing it for sale from all of our resellers.
Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, and so quickly, so that we could remove it right away.
Best wishes for 2021," Many thanks for User:Nitraus for finding the problem.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Really a sad case, I have to just wonder how the authors didnt see this as an issue. You would assume that they would be familiar with the ethics of scientific writing having the positions they do. At least Elsevier acted. --Nitraus (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Good questions. Someone spent real money on this 1000-page color-illustrated book. My guess is that two senior authors wanted to showcase their geo-knowledge and their rock collections. And the junior author, a young woman in a Philipine university, was stuck with generating the chem content.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Full credit to you both for finding this and getting it dealt with. You might be able to get the whole story on 'In the Pipeline' or some-such, I'm sure a non-covid story would go down well at the moment. It serves as a interesting example: plenty of people still consider Wikipedia's articles to be of suspect quality, but in this case the book's editor/reviewer was reading them without knowing it and found the content good enough to be in a scientific textbook. It's a sign perhaps that this project is generating very good work in places. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Structural inconsistency among acetylacetonate complexes

I noticed that there is an inconsistency in the structural formulas in Category:Acetylacetonate complexes, namely concerning the dashed bonds:

Is anyone aware of a IUPAC recommendation on how to draw the lines?

In addition, there are different types of ball-and-stick images, i.e. with and without dashed lines, e.g.:

--Leyo 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

the real problem is that at least two structures are incorrect. No way Ba is 4-coordinate and the Dy complex would typically has additional Lewis bases.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I made the Dy-complex diagram solely based on its given chemical formula ("Dy(acac)3 itself"). I agree it's likely to have additional ligands (looks like the commercial product is the hydrate but I don't know the hydration number). I can't find a gas-phase or matrix-isolation structure of the specific substance itself. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Part of the issue probably lies with the most common CAS numbers. 14637-88-8 (Dy) and 12084-29-6 (Ba) resolve the structures above and appear prominently in goggle if you search for the compounds by name. There are CAS numbers for Dy-acac as a trihydrate (18716-76-2) and Ba-acac as a general hydrate (206752-34-3) but they're obscure by comparison. Chembox supports multiple CAS numbers so we could include both sets with an explanation in the body text. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Well there's no fault for anyone, and admittedly I am picky about hydrates. Part of the problem is that these compounds are used as precursors by materials scientists, and all they really care about is that the precursor degrade to the oxides. I do think that Ba(acac)2 should be AfD'd. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd support that. Many of the more esoteric examples seems to have come from one enthusiastic editor. Our usual requirements for notability should apply, otherwise it's just stamp collecting. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I also support deleting the less notable ones (do we have consistent criteria for chemicals?). The OP asks about "how to draw the lines". I don't think that IUPAC gets in to that issue, since it usually sticks to nomenclature. For articles in Wikipedia, I think that the pseudo-3D representation is fine (assuming that the structure illustrated is in line with for example X-ray structures in sources). Note that representations in Chemspider and elsewhere often show these organometallic structures as salts with disconnected fragments. Chemical databases don't, AFAIK, allow partial bonds of the type implied by a dotted bond: they have to represent structures in conventional connection tables, and hence InChI strings. This leads to some difficult problems of representation, since the tendency is to draw one ketone in its enol(ate) form and the other as a ketone, which can lead to problems, since in practise the system is a resonance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

List of compounds

I was reviewing the list of compounds and I noticed that a lot of super heavy compounds like SgCO6 are not in there and I don't know how to wikicode without doing to much damage. Not to mention some article are very vague about whether its a compound or not like NhOH. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The longest half life of Seaborgium is 14 min, for Nihonium it's about 10 seconds. What can we sensibly say about the chemistry of such elements - other than that it is brief? I doubt any 'normal' data exists as only vanishingly small amounts could ever be made (such levels of radioactivity would make bulk samples even less stable). What we're left with is fleeting observations, modelling, and to a certain extent conjecture. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Um, the fact that it exists and how its made? Besides NhOH and SgCO6 exist to I think, the article isn't very clear on that. plus fermium has to have some and einsteinium does too. Can't we put that in there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes