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

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(2 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(8 more...)


There is a group of polymer chemists from IUPAC who want to work on bringing the Polymer article to FA. Hopefully there will be some serious work done on that article soon, but some guidance from here would be very useful and welcome. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's good to hear. It's an important article that could definitely use some improvement. Since this project is much more active than popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Polymers, I would encourage them to bring any questions or concerns here. They should get more prompt responses here and the regulars are friendly and helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The polymer area is so big and in a way so mature, that most of the referencing should/could be achieved by reference to textbooks and encyclopedia, per WP:TERTIARY. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not aim for GA first? -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Some missing sections would be on history, use, and biologic function. But the article has to have a suitable level of detail, so that some content may have to go into the sub/related articles. Overall there should probably be 2 to 4 times as many references. Another step is peer review prior to a FA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, this is all helpful advice. I'd certainly support the idea of GA first. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The discussion at popflock.com Resource: Articles for deletion/4-Ethylamphetamine had to be extended because additional input is needed. Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in contributing. ChemNerd (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this deletion and the need for additional input. Hayleysmitty18 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts update

As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now you have a way to track it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Some orphaned chemistry articles

Hello, I've been trawling through the orphaned articles categories and found a couple I could use help with: thioselenide and purinones. Are these important enough subjects to require standalone articles? If not, could they be merged, somewhere? Or is deletion in order? I can do any necessary legwork, I just need to be steered the right way by people who know what they're talking about (ie, not me). ♠PMC(talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit of referenced content to thioselenide, enough to suggest it shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps it can be merged somewhere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, and you de-orphaned it, brilliant, thank you :) ♠PMC(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

<chem>: an AI for people having structureless mind

A miraculous AI achievement: the software is able to determine when the formula reaches a certain "complexity" and switches its syntax rules without warnings. The people of 2010s like AI - it brings equality between right and crooked hands, between the smart and the stupid. Everyone intelligent is susceptible to making the syntax wrong as much as an idiot who can't tell a hyphen of a colon. Poor old guys like Incnis_Mrsi are confused - they are accustomed to predictable syntax patterns which permit for making localized tweaks without considering complexity of the whole code. Poor Incnis_Mrsi was able to avoid breaking most <chem>s only using suggestions by Mhchem (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email), who added several phrases to the manual. The phrases are about things not interesting for modern people - really, who may override default typesetting or care about other similarly dull things? It's the domain of (Microsoft Office)-style AI. What an arrogant prick is this Incnis_Mrsi to imagine he knows how h? should be set in glyphs. And who likes the (Cold War)-era syntax now? This legacy cruft was favored by such people as Dennis Ritchie (C) or Donald Knuth (TeX), but modern developers are cooler than the dinosaurs. Modern developers may master even such languages as PHP which was unlikely possible in the 1970s or so. What for nowadays? Just push your dumb keyboard, username, and don't try to bring any order into the resulting groups of characters.

Seriously speaking, users who voted this AI punk into WP:MOSCHEM now earn my disgrace. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that use of <chem> and {{chem}} is deprecated here. {{chem2}} has some acceptable features. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Good news. I suppose nobody here objects throwing the unsyntax out of the atmosphere of Mars into deep space. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't really stake much of a claim on the astronomy pages. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
An example of astronomy topic is atmosphere of Makemake. Atmospheres of Mars and even of Pluto are not astronomy... anymore. Welcome to the Space Age, Project Osprey. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing escalated to Help talk:Displaying a formula #RfC on <chem> where a user edit-wars against me apparently in favor of <chem> (or perhaps mostly for personal reasons, not sure). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Related: Template talk:Chem2 #Unexpected wrapping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I now work for improving {{chem2}} where the original creator left many gotchas and faults. Especially opinions on encoding of prime symbols (or apostrophes, for typewriter fans) are welcome. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Chemical formula pages

I wrote an anon bot that gathers a few data from chemical infoboxes including chemical formulas. (Here is the list of formulas and articles.)

Now I am checking formula pages in enwiki and correct them manually. 80% of formula pages are redirs to compounds and over 3000 such redirs are missing. The list is on my user page.

I want to create them with a bot and am asking for your approval to mass-creating. Gyimhu (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the principle.
So "formula page" is like [[C100H132N26O13]] and you want to create these, as a redirect? Is this a common rewriting in chemistry? What if the formula is not just empirical (symbols & number-of-atoms only), but has structural info like -brackets?
It could be helpful to check formula on a infobox with the formula on wikidata. A difference might indicate an error. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Many isomers of may exist, not necessarily triethylsilane. Moreover, redirects are cheap, but not exactly costless. Does popflock.com resource really need this burden in redirects to thousands compounds? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
For the complex organic molecules these redirects are not useful. However for the simpler inorganic compounds the formula redirect will be useful, as it is quite likely to determine the compound and article. For most of the multicarbon organics there are many known isomers and so the page should be a disambiguation or set index, even if many of the possibilities are not notable at this point in history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to chemistry, Incnis Mrsi. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Special:Search seems to do a good job of finding articles by chemical formula as long as the infobox itself does not both manually override the default Hill order of the chemical formula and also omit the InChI. And it does so with zero maintenance (neither creating a redir not converting a redir to a DAB). DMacks (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
There's possible (probable) overlap with Category:Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas. I'm indifferent to this idea, I never search by formula myself but I'm sure there there are those that do, or would wish to without having to resort to Special:Search. Would some sort of complexity cut-off be necessary? - I can't imagine anyone actually searching for C100H132N26O13. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Chemical formula consists of atoms and number of atoms. All characters are alphanumeric. Organic compounds begin with C continued with H, the rests are in abc order. E.g. isomer page of formula C6H2(NO2)3CH3 will be C7H5N3O6.
I think this pages are more useful for organic compounds. The formula page contains isomers. If only one compound exists with a formula then the page is redir to the compound. 80% of formulas are uniq (redirs). I create/update the (not redir) isomer pages manually so it is an other case.
The isomer page is not my idea. My experience is that 2/3 of organic (more exactly: C-containing) compounds have correct isomer pages. There is ~18000 compound articles in enwiki, C is in ~15000, and in ~1400 my bot didn't find formula because they are polimers, more then one compounds in Formula field of infobox, or my bot didn't recognise formula because of crystallic water, more given formulas, isotope in it and there are few other reasons. Gyimhu (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What the user is speaking about and why s/he pings me? Again, for most of the multicarbon organics there are many known isomers - it is about a scientific fact, not the user's idea. Which namely of isomers should have (or are expected to have) distinct articles in en.Wikipedia is not a question solvable by a bot. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
He. Sorry for ping. I came recently from Hungarian wiki and there it is custom.
I wrote a bot that gathers chemical formulas from articles, order them and make them searchable. If there is only one compound with a formula then it is possible to create redir article by a bot. This is only a technical problem. Isomer pages with more then one compounds are different because they are used as disambiguation pages in enwiki and contain not only formulas but other information too. Gyimhu (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To user:DePiep: I tried to compare formulas in wikidata, enwiki and huwiki. Wikidata is hopeless: full of errors. There are many compunds where there are quite other compounds in content and article name. I corrected a few then gave up.

Yes, nobody will search for C100... but the most formulas have only 10-20-30 carbons.

InChi is a good idea and I have plans with it and with SMILES. Gyimhu (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My point with InChI is that by defintion it already always includes the exact formula in its first layer. So it's guaranteed that the formula will be findable by searching. And I re-iterate my serious concern about keeping this up-to-date. I think it's worse that we have a formula page that does not link all existing articles than to have no formula page at all. It substantially hides what we actually do have as new pages are created (bias towards older compounds), rather than having them all automatically and equally visible.
If I understand your last sentence, you have a longer-term plan to create redirects for InChI and SMILES strings? I strongly oppose. Nobody wikilinks to specific compounds that way and again they are all already and automatically visible to searching both using the wiki search-engine and google itself. We tested that extensively when developing the hideable fields of chembox and during several validation and bot-monitoring projects. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
DMacks, in my experience a search using the molecular formula of a certain chemical compound will not always result in finding the page for that chemical, even when that page includes both the molecular formula and the InChI in the infobox. Taking a random example, if I put C19H22F2N4O3 in Wikipedia's search box, the results don't include sparfloxacin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If I put it in quotes, that article was the only hit (which also means it's somewhere in the list when not quoted, though I'm not going to page through 52K hits to find it). As an alternative, I tried limiting the search to subcats of top-level chemistry and drug cats, but the number and depth of categorization overflowed Mediawiki's little brain. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not that dangerous. :) My plans are for my homepage. First I want to write a program that compares chemical formulas with InChi and SMILES and list articles where they are missing. The results can be uploaded to a wiki page in my homepage or to an enWiki user page as you wish.
There were several thousands of formula pages (including redirs) when I started correcting them. The set of chemical articles is a special form database. I have been database admin for 20 years: I know that a database is either complete in some respects or not worth much. At least as bad are the wrong data. The database already exists: the best we can do to fix it I think. Later the maintenance is possible using a bot: it can list the changes in articles. Subsequent manual maintenance is no longer a big task.
After creating the redirs I find necessary another manual check where the bot checking fails. My bot is already monitoring the changes: the only thing to do is formatting the output. This is the next step.
A have created ~1000 redirs manually. This is a boring and time consuming task. Gyimhu (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The remarks by DMacks re InChI and searching are worth more consideration. It might give us a guideline on maintaining and curing Template:\tl and . -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Sidebar periodic table}}

Can anybody look at this new concept for the sidebar? It provides hints for notation of groups and periods which may look cryptic for some people. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. There are no recent "new" things. "Hints"? (I pinged WT:ELEMENTS). -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
No recent "new" things, whaaaaat Yes, it perhaps is more topical for WP:WikiProject Elements than here, I unfortunately forgot about it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox proposals, then. Please propose changes properly. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Comparing the latest versions of the template and its sandbox (special:diff/896356272/910384468), the only differences I see are the addition of , which doesn't seem to have any impact that I can see. Unless there is a specific reason for adding that stuff, I'd prefer to stay with the current one. But perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what benefit the provides. Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious. YBG (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Under "By periodic table structure" I can see three headings: Groups (1--18); Periods (1--7, ...); and Blocks (s, p, d, f, ...). So, I guess the PT can be structured by Groups, Periods, and Blocks. And if I want to know more I can click on a w/link. For an info, this looks OK to me.

The sandbox changes look OK to me. They add little fly-out boxes to each of the w/links. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I like those extra boxes that appear when you hover over the links. Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the diff. -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Will anybody help to characterize the group 3? Or any idea to make titles less verbose? To some extent we should conserve the end user's bandwidth yet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, now I see the difference. My general impression is that it is trying to cram too much info into an navbox and presenting that info in what seems to me to be an unexpected way that seems to come close to an WP:EASTEREGG. But this is not a hill I'd die on. If the consensus determines that what appears to me to be unnecessary clutter, then let's change the period titles, for example, from Period 2: Li-Ne, 2 < Z to the more quickly readable Period 2: Li-Ne, Z=3-10 or something similar. YBG (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
And just a random thought: I suddenly disliked [my own] "Li-Ne" as the dash may be taken for a symbol of covalent bond. Going to replace it with "Li ... Ne". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I get it. The changes use the <span> title attribute a span to describe the topic (wheareas otherwise we would see the target article title). The title appears as a box, also knows as "tooltip box". As it happens, when hovering over with the mouse, my settings also show a preview of the article lede section (don't know the gadget name, sorry).
As YBG writes, it is cramming extra info in there (while still not being complete eg re the elements list of a period). Unlike YBG, I am not convinced yet. I think this is a slight misuse of the title attribute, and therefor not recommended HTML-wise. However, I cannot find the documentation on this. (Unfortunately, we have used this gimmmick a long time, eg here; I'm not sure about that one too).
So I'd prefer this usage be researched first (ask WP:VPT?). -DePiep (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If title is used in {{abbr}} which is transcluded to thousands articles, then what's the merit to discuss its use in navboxes specifically? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
From {{abbr}}: "The template {{Abbr}} is used to write an abbreviation with its meaning. It is a wrapper for the HTML element <abbr>...</abbr>, the element used by most web browsers to create a tooltip indicating the meaning of an abbreviation or acronym."
So: the http element <abbr> is not <span>, and so is not its title attribute definition. So the abbr reference is inappropriate.
Now both title attributed do signify a true title (for example, showing the title of an article in regular wikilink hovering). But in no way a title should be confused with a description, as the current sandbox proposal does.
On top of this all: the template mentions (in top) a link re deprecation: popflock.com Resource: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_9#Template:Tooltip. I think this RfD clearly prohibits "tooltip" text other than abbreviations. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion cited WP:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text which advises against such things... in articles. It was silly not to consult MoS beforehand, but now asked for clarifications about navboxes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Science project

I just happened across the article Science project, which looks rather unloved. Expansion would be welcome and probably not that difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Diketone vs dicarbonyl: future move?

We have a nice compact article on diketones, encompassing 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-diketones. I am guessing that most chemists would rather consult an article on 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dicarbonyls, which would include the keto-aldehydes and the dialdehydes. Its a big class of compounds, and one could foresee future splitting into individual articles, such as 1,2-Dicarbonyl (biacetyl, glyoxal being prominent), 1,3-Dicarbonyl (acetylacetone and malondialdehyde being prominent), etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful re-organization of the material. It could also absorb Keto acid, an article that likewise does not have any unique unifying chemistry except by structural definition. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As specific unifying themes of position regardless of functional group, then the 1,2 section/article could talk about the general effect of the adjacent C=O (bond length, electrophilicity); the 1,3 section/article about formation by aldol-like addition, enhanced tautomerization, and as metal ligands; etc.. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this idea was naive or too ambitious. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

SME needed for Draft:Inorganic carbodiimides

Could somebody please review Draft:Inorganic carbodiimides. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Intermetallic compound

Do we have any naming conventions about intermetallic compounds such as CaPt2, MgCu2, etc.? --Leiem (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know we use the most common name. Sometimes the literature only uses a formula. The title would then be the flattened formula. CaPt2. MgCu2. Then we could use an IUPAC name, but it may be unsourced. I have made up names for some articles I wrote. You could use calcium platinum or  Calcium diplatinide ... Let me see if that's a thing! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears not to be in use, as the term is only used on popflock.com resource talk pages. But platinide appears valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Dictionary of Inorganic Compounds calls MgCu2 "copper magnesium (2:1)". ChemNerd (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The names in SciFinder are "Copper, compd. with magnesium (2:1)", "Magnesium, compd. with copper (1:2) (8CI)" and "Magnesium copper (Cu2Mg)" . --Leiem (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In our article for MgCu2 we give it the IUPAC name of "copper-magnesium (2:1)". I think this comes from an old IUPAC recommendation to name intermetallics in alphabetic order, rather in order of electronegativity. CaPt2 is an intermetallic rather than a platinide. Sandbh (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Russian Wikipedia, names such as "diplatinumcalcium" are used. Burzuchius (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for input regarding Merge Request

There is a request for the merger of the Anionic addition polymerization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article into Living anionic polymerization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the Merge Request Noticeboard. Discussion is at an impass. Your input is welcome at the discussion page >>>HERE<<<. Thank you, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Chemistry icon

Hi all, during our refresh of MediaWiki icons, the chemistry icon (used in the visual editor to insert <chem>...</chem> formulae) was updated. There is an ongoing discussion on the Phabricator task about whether to used a closed beaker or an open top beaker. If any of you have an opinion, please reply here or on Phabricator. Thanks, ESanders (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A note here, the icon under discussion - whether open or closed - does NOT represent a Beaker_(glassware), but an Erlenmeyer flask. The gif quoted in the phabricator case(File:More_simple_chemistry_apparatus.gif) calls the "Erlenmeyer flask" a "conical flask".
Now unless there is some difference in terminology in other English-speaking countries, I would posit that the very fact that the incorrect terminology is used in the phabricator item indicates either carelessness or a disconnect with the target audience.
Using a picture of a Erlenmeyer flask instead of a picture of a beaker is a good idea since it has a more distinctive shape. To make a beaker distinctive, one would have to over-emphasize the "beak" or pouring spout, which I don't think would work out.
The statement is made that "When drawing chemical apparatus, the top is left open unless the beaker has a lid". But the question is, why? Is it a matter of convention, esthetics, recognition, or usefulness? I believe that the reason for this observation is that the pictures referenced in the pbabricator case are intended to be combined with other icons to create a large diagram containing multiple vessels. If this convention were not followed, a diagram such as the one in File:Anaerobic respiration equipment.png would appear to show fluids flowing through walls.
But if I understand correctly, the purpose of this icon is to stand alone, not to be combined with other objects to create a complicated piece of chemical apparatus. That being the case, the need to not show fluids flowing through walls is immaterial; what is paramount is recognition and esthetics. On that basis, I believe the closed form is more recognizable and esthetically preferred.
I would gladly defer my opinion to others who are fluent in chemistry, but I would strongly encourage people to emphasize the opinions of the chemically fluent instead of the opinions of those who do not know the difference between a "beaker" and an 'Erlenmeyer flask". YBG (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I responded on phab (executive summary of my thoughts: "'closed outline', but add 'solid filled' as third option"). DMacks (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Adsorption trash

The palladium article adsorbs some trash. The warning was dismissed. Watchers (other than myself) are slow to react. Unfortunately I didn't ever hold a piece of palladium in my hands, hence deem inappropriate to engage in a hardcore edit war over it. Volunteer to undo waste adsorption? If not to intervene timely, superficial adsorption may gradually turn to waste absorption characteristic to poorly maintained popflock.com resource articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, school-texts (and even reputable undergrad texts) often emphasize that Pd adsorbs Hydrogen (which frankly, is the most important property) and does not go to the extent of discussing further subsurface adsorption i.e. absorption. What's the issue and the corresponding assumption of bad faith? WBGconverse 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's read into
then to palladium hydride #Chemical structure and properties. What does palladium to form PdH? Isn't the latter a three-dimensional solid, after all? As for faith, the problem in hand is mostly scientific and better to avoid religious dimension. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chem A-Class

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Chem A-Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Organic Syntheses refs

Background: We can probably agree that Organic Syntheses is a nearly ideal source, being WP:SECONDARY and open-source.

Lately I have been converting citations in the OrgSyn template Template:OrgSynth to the generic journal template. Upon reflection maybe I should just stick with the Template:OrgSynth.

Here is the situation. OS publishes annual volumes. Presently these volumes are exclusively on-line. But at one time they were actual booklets. Every 15 years or so, the individual volumes would be organized into a collected volume, with new pagination and new publication year. The scholarly information (date of original work, the official journal record) is in the individual volumes, not in the collected volumes. Many of our Template:OrgSynth citations only include info on the collected volume. That material should probably be voided and replaced with the actual volume.--Smokefoot (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Chemical Abstracts and PubChem as sources?

Question: Chemical Abstracts and PubChem provide a great deal of data on chemical compounds. Are these reliable sources? Should they be cited? Suggested answers:

  • In general: no, but the sources that they cite might be (although WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY are preferrable when possible).
  • We should accept their data to populate ChemBoxes with information on physical properties and structural/safety descriptors
  • PubChem is a reliable source of names.

--Smokefoot (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

About PubChem, I think only the PubChem generated IDs (SMILES, InChI, InChIKey) can be reused. The names should be avoided as many people don't distinguish between stereoisomers. And PubChem generated IDs are not primary sources: PubChem team uses a tool to generate those IDs. Snipre (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
For molar mass calculations, I cannot trust PubChem. PubChem uses standard atomic weight values different from the formal (CIAAW) ones; some of these are stated in WD as std atomic weight (Ca, calcium (Q706)). -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The generated IDs are derived by processing of other structural data, so as long as we trust that they actually have the correct structure, I trust their implementation of a purely mechanical algorithm based on it. For example, by definition, everyone who generates InChI from the same structure would get the same result because InChI is literally derived exactly on the structure. MW is based on the formula, but depends as DePiep notes on their atomic weights. We don't need to do that at all because our infobox can do the MW calculation locally and we can make sure we're using whatever atomic weights are consensus for our site. It's true that stereochemical detail is sometimes omitted on PubChem, but I think it's also true that a non-stereospecific name is 1) useful and 2) just missing stereoisomeric detail (adding those details would not alter the constitutional-isomeric name aspect). For physical properties, I see it as a secondary/teriary that is usable depending on what source they cite for it. But in all cases, need to check for hydration and salt forms (PubChem sometimes does funny things with conjugate bases of acidic compounds). DMacks (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
For PubChem I have found numerous errors. Structures and names can be wrong. There may be extra CAS numbers or EC numbers that actually belong to related substances. However SMILES and InChi do match the structure they have, and so will be right if that is right. When I contacted the staff they were not interested in fixing anything and blamed the contributors, which for some entries you can see where the info came from. Mostly the information is correct, but it is good to have a sanity check and compare it to other databases/sources. Also don't count on PubChem for proving notability. I do use PubChem to populate safety information, but this too is an aggregation and so may have a lot more codes than you would find on the average container for the product. Safety will also depend on how much you are dealing with, there is a difference between 1 g and 1 ton. I am also adding PubChem CIDs to those pages missing them, and adding any other ids that PubChem has (RTECS DSTXID chebi chembl unnumber unii) For Chemical Abstracts, isn't that authoritative for CASNo?Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Definitely a GIGO database. Their structure diagrams are sometimes laughable nonsense too--correct connectivity, but impossible 3D forms. DMacks (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Who has access to Food Chemistry?

IamNotU claims there's a copyvio from Food Chemistry (an Elsevier journal) in Menengic coffee. Unfortunately, I only have access to the abstract, so can't verify the copyvio. Anybody have a subscription and can check this out for me? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, I see that the copyvio has now been redacted by another admin. All the text was a direct copy-paste from the paper. If you'd like to see it, I found a free-to-read author's copy on ResearchGate: [1]. PS, in case you didn't know already, you can get free access to many academic sources with your popflock.com resource account through popflock.com Resource: The popflock.com resource Library. In a pinch, you can also try Sci Hub. Hope that helps... --IamNotU (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I saw. That's fine. I do have access to JSTOR via TWL, but this wasn't available from them. I just put myself on the waitlist for Elsevier ScienceDirect; thanks for the suggestion. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2019 (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