Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

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

Templates for discussion

(216 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(7 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(35 more...)

List of aqua-ions and their hydroxo- and oxo- derivatives in aqueous solution[]

I've been working on this list for ca. three weeks, with valuable help from User:Petergans, and a few other WP:ELEM members. When I started I had little idea how it would turn out apart from supposing cations on the left and anions on the right. That is, of course, how it turned out but there were and still are many wrinkles between those two extremes.

Appreciate any observations folks here may have. I intend for it to be eventually listed at WP:FL.

thank you Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a synthesis? As there seems to be nothing around outside of Wikipedia called "aqua-ions and their hydroxo- and oxo- derivatives in aqueous solution". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
For chemists, its not very useful. It presents an archaic view of chemistry (what is "HfO2+"?). As other ors indicate above and below this remark, its point is slightly unclear although the intent is admirable. One related topic that we could really use is a semi-comprehensive list of polyoxometalates, both homo and hetero.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this list article has a lot of potential, but why not name it List of aqueous ions or List of aqueous ions by element? The detailed and somewhat convoluted title seems unnecessary and will be confusing to many. The list seems to include other common ions that are not aqua ions or contain oxygen, and in my opinion should do so (e.g., chloride). Since it seems like we don't have a broader, more comprehensive list, why not make this fill that gap? Also, I do not understand the "Combination of species" column. Probably some system I am unfamiliar with, but it is not described in the article that I can tell and many other readers will not understand it either. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the article title is unhelpful, and I think either of your suggestions is superior to the current title and to the previous titles. FYI, the article started out as Periodic table (aqueous chemistry), then change to List of ions in aqueous chemistry, then to List of ions in pure water (aqueous chemistry), then List of stable ions in pure water (aqueous chemistry), and finally to the current title List of aqua-ions and their hydroxo- and oxo- derivatives in aqueous solution. I think your suggestion is so good that I am going to WP:BOLDly move the article.
Second, with regard to the "combination of species" column, it shows how many species (cation, oxycation, anion, oxyanion) a given element forms, and which of the four species it forms. I have added an extended footnote to this effect. Previously the only explanation was the (C), (xC), (A), (xA) located in the other columns, which was inadequate. Does the new addition make it clear? Would the meaning be clearer if the column title was "Number of species"? Or is there some way to improve the wording of the note? Or should the note be better presented using the {{abbr}} template that is normally used to explain an abbreviation like this: "Combinations". Or should a brief explanation be added to the paragraph before the table?
Thank you for your input! YBG (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I now understand the column, but with the description buried as a footnote, I still don't think it is very accessible to most readers and will likely cause confusion. Since it seems simply an attempt to indicate which categories of ions are possible for a given element, isn't that information evident by whether the other columns have entries or not? I think this column should be removed as I feel it's likely just causing confusion rather than conveying useful information. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mdewman6: You are absolutely correct that this column adds no additional information ... however it does add the capability of sorting by combination of species. As such, it is helpful for ors who wish to keep the periodic table up-to-date. YBG (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mdewman6: By the way, it is no longer buried in a footnote, but visible in mouse-over text. Recognizing that the column less important than the other columns, I have moved it to the right of the table. YBG (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your help Graeme, Smokefoot, and Mdewman6.

Much information about which ions the elements form in water can be found in Schweitzer & Pesterfield 2010, The Aqueous Chemistry of the Elements. I say "much", as they sometimes abstract the species concerned. Sometimes they discuss what ions are involved in the abstraction, sometimes not. Consultation of the sources used by them, or sources such as Baes & Mesmer 1976, The Hydrolysis of Cations (which User:Petergans mentioned) or Brown 2016, Hydrolysis of Metal Ions, allows the unpacking of such abstractions.

On utility or being archaic, there is an evident periodic table pattern to the occurence of the ions concerned. Thus:

"Professional academic resources have begun to encourage an examination of periodicity with activities based on pattern recognition of element properties, the fundamental concept Mendeleev and Meyer used in the 19th century to create the first PTE"
— Bierenstiel M & Snow K 2019, "Periodic universe: A teaching model for understanding the periodic table of the elements", Journal of Chemical Education 96 (7), 1367–1376 (1367), doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00740

On HfO2+, S&P say about the Zr equivalent, "This formula is a simplification of the tetramic species that is believed to predominate, namely Zr
4
(OH)8+
4
." If that is the case for HfO2+, they do not say.

Petergans has been adding polyoxometalate species.

Aside from chlorine species there are no other species with chlorine in them, that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a fundamental issue with this article: the establishment of which species exist in aqueous solution over a wide range of pH is based on computer modelling, see #model selection in Determination of equilibrium constants​. This is compounded by the fact that equilibrium with polymeric species is often reached rather slowly. A guide to model selection is provided by known structures of species that have been precipitated from solution, but it does not follow that those are the major species that are present in solution. Also, there may be ambiguity as in the empirical formulae of HfO2+ or Hf(OH)22+ which cannot be resolved for the presumably tetrameric species in solution. In my s I have omitted those species whose existence in solution is most doubtful. Petergans (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Many of the Cation species are not present as a bare metal ion in solution, but will be present as a hexaaqua complex. The colour depends on that octahedral arrangement of water molecules. eg Ni(H2O)62+ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No stable oxyanion is given for hydrogen, is it not hydroxide? …and hydroperoxide, etc --Project Osprey (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the project is way too ambitious. And to do it right, one needs to be very familiar with metal ions in aqueous solution, rare knowledge. As Petergans points out, pH is a huge factor. Olation can be slow. 17O NMR studies show that even "simple stuff' like hydrated nickel halides and sulfates are partially associated. One approach would be to take on one important metal, say Zn2+, and nail it. I have been considering writing an article transition metal hydroxide complexes (vs just transition metal hydroxides) but most of the article would be on mixed ligand species like [Co(NH3)5OH]++ because few homoleptics exist. Also reviews on the topic are few.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this page is ambitious, as the topic of aqueous speciation, ions, and complexes cover entire textbooks and is a function of pH, complex equilibria, and solution composition, and here we are trying to reduce it essentially to one table. But, I think it can be made clear that this article is not comprehensive nor complete, but instead is a compilation of the major ions for each element, with many links to WP articles. I don't think we need to get bogged down in pH-dependent equilibria and such here, that can be fleshed out in articles for specific ions as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you@Mdewman6: that was my intent for the article. There are several monographs that give this information. But one has to have one's wits about oneself, as user:Petergans has intimated, and mention on what basis the authors of RS are making their claims. That was the purpose of the notes column, among other things, until it was removed for some reason. I supposed this could be done via footnotes instead.
I was interested to see what the periodic table distribution would be for these species. This is mapped in the accompanying periodic table but I haven't checked to see if it's still accurate since recent amendments to this list, some of which I intend to contest, in due course.
user:Petergans added the text accompanying the list (to whom, thank you!). This text needs some work as I feel parts of it are unintelligible to the general reader.
If things go as intended I'll post periodic updates to this talk page. Sandbh (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping@Petergans: Sandbh (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonmetal at FAC[]

I'd be grateful if anyone here has the interest and time to look at this one. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

After two unsuccessful nominations, round 3 at FAC is here. Sandbh (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The FAC has now rec'd its first Support. Is there anyone here who could assist? Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: Lists of IARC agents[]

Information.svg

An or has requested for List of IARC Group 1 Agents - Carcinogenic to humans to be moved to IARC Group 1. Since you had some involvement with List of IARC Group 1 Agents - Carcinogenic to humans, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Information.svg

An or has requested for List of IARC Group 2A Agents - Probably carcinogenic to humans to be moved to IARC Group 2A. Since you had some involvement with List of IARC Group 2A Agents - Probably carcinogenic to humans, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Information.svg

An or has requested for List of IARC Group 2B Agents - Possibly carcinogenic to humans to be moved to IARC Group 2B. Since you had some involvement with List of IARC Group 2B Agents - Possibly carcinogenic to humans, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Information.svg

An or has requested for List of IARC Group 3 Agents - Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans to be moved to IARC Group 3. Since you had some involvement with List of IARC Group 3 Agents - Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021[]

Hi, I'd like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland. These national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice image or video to Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Structure diagram service?[]

Is there a service for producing high-quality structure diagrams, in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop? I'm doing a GA review of Riboflavin, which has some structure diagrams that are of such a low quality, they're nearly unusable. I imagine somebody who's a ChemDraw wiz could come up with high quality replacements pretty quickly. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't currently help with new images, but the existing images look to have been made by badly ing File:Riboflavin Synthase Mechanism.png --Project Osprey (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: https://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/ ? (no experience myself). -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to ChemDraw some images. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request, but nobody seems to use it lately. There are some tags on commons if you find a mistake or a low-quality image there, but those categories are large and again nobody is actively working through them. Probably best to just make a one-off request here or on a user-talkpage of a participany you know or that seems active if you have a specific need. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Foolish me thinks that you could just copy-paste the SMILES code from the article into some appropriate piece of software and out pops a perfect image, but I don't suppose it's quite that easy? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Chemdraw can do that SMILES→PIC, but it does have limits, where it makes a mess. And my version does not make .svg files. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Same with mine. I have no idea why...SVG on Mac has been widely supported for many years in general, but CD on that platform tends to lag in several ways. There are some online and some open-source programs that can do it. But in all cases, they make arbitrary choices about lots of layout/orientation details that might not match or make sense in the context of an existing article with multiple images (same as any machine translation). DMacks (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I am very familiar with chemical drawing packages, which I've used since the 1980s, and can turn their output into .svg files of compact size. If RoySmith or anyone else makes a specific request on my Talk Page, I'd be happy to oblige. My recent efforts include those at molnupiravir and PF-07321332. There are some software packages that can give reasonable .png from molfiles (in turn available from Chemspider as downloads) but for fidelity the stereochemistry etc. really needs the attention of an organic chemist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template chembox - Lua and infoboxes[]

Hello! In the recent days I've been discussing about {{chembox}} in regard to changing its technical infrastructure to be rewritten in Lua so that we won't need tens of subtemplates to make use of its modular design. The discussion is currently happening here where the reasons for the proposed change are also discussed. It was suggested to me to also notify here so I'd appreciate any kind of feedback. Please make sure to comment there so we can have 1 single discussion for the topic. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: at Talk:Chembox § Convert Chembox into Lua module, Klein Muçi proposes to allow {{Chembox}} be changed into a Lua-based {{Infobox}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alchemy#RFC: Should Alchemy be included in Category:Pseudoscience[]

People here may want to opine there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Recurring issue with articles on organic chemistry[]

Here is a typical article on an (important) organic reaction: "The Sharpless epoxidation reaction is an enantioselective chemical reaction to prepare 2,3-epoxyalcohols from primary and secondary allylic alcohols.<ref name="Katsuki1980">{{cite journal|author=Katsuki, T.|author2=[[K. Barry Sharpless]] |journal=[[J. Am. Chem. Soc.]]|year=1980|volume=102|pages= 5974| doi=10.1021/ja00538a077|title=The first practical method for asymmetric epoxidation|issue=18}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|authors=Hill, J. G.; Sharpless, K. B.; Exon, C. M.; Regenye, R.|journal=[[Org. Synth.]]|volume=63|pages=66|year=1985|doi=10.15227/orgsyn.063.0066| title=Enantioselective Epoxidation Of Allylic Alcohols: (2s,3s)-3-propyloxiranemethanol}}</ref>

Notice that the references might be of some historical interest since they cite the discovery. Our readers are not visiting this article to learn history (i.e., worship at the altar of organic chemistry), readers are here for information on a reaction: how its done, state of the art, overview. So in general, we should reconsider this style of writing and emphasize reviews/books in the lede. The history can be put elsewhere in the article. My 2 cents.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article and should not (normally) have any references at all. I can't see any problem with a historic section in the article, and a (short) summary in the lead Christian75 (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I was referring to many articles on traditional organic synthesis where the lede exclusively references discovery papers. I agree that discovery and history are often desirable content, but my concern is that if we have refs in the lede, they should be to contemporary overviews. Example, when looking up older versions of the [epoxidation], the original publications by Sharpless et al. were cited in the lede. These refs do not offer perspective and are generally obsolete in terms of methodology. Some of our pioneering ors in the organic area, e.g., user:~K, tended to pay homage to discovery vs citing broader sources. My 2cents only. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Please look at [case] on the Claisen rearrangement.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: These references should be in relation to the name of these name-reactions. The top sentence in itself does not need these references, it would be better to replace them on this sentence with some high-level recent reviews, focusing on the subject (or leaving out references altogether, they will come in the rest of the article). Paying homage, which for name-reactions is something that belongs in the lede anyway, can then be done with 'The reaction was named after XXX (and YYY) for ZZZ<ref>...</ref>', where these two references then can be used. The history section (which is educational for interested readers - how science progresses) can then elaborate on the 'invention' and progress through time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chembox has an RFC[]

Template:Chembox 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. DePiep (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Chembox: proposal to remove unspecific data[]

Some external criticism[]

Here's an external peer review of some of our pages doi:10.1080/87567555.2021.2004387. Can't get into it myself, but the abstract seems fairly withering. Their advice: don't bother reading beyond the first paragraph. I'll confess to being curious about the contents. They cite that paper from a few years back which took aim at our images doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00478. Merry Christmas everyone. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the paper looked at these Chem articles (and similar number of articles in other STEM fields):
The article concludes with these points:
They also cite this article published on the WWW https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200772541_Power_of_the_Few_vs_Wisdom_of_the_Crowd_Wikipedia_and_the_Rise_of_the_Bourgeoisie#fullTextFileContent, which contends that early on (<2005) Wikipedia was written by experts but now is mainly written by lower level ors.
Merry Christmas to our happy band of bourgeoisie ors.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
What is Opportunistic learning, and how does it relate to an encyclopedia? BTW, is this O.L. done by desktop or by mobile? Because, in mobile my infoboxes are in paragraph #2 :-( -DePiep (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
O.L. = "informal, self-regulated study to learn, relearn, or be introduced to a concept. This contradicts Wikipedia’s stated purpose as “not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook”. O.L., I think, means self-motivated browsing, which leads to learning.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, so the damage we're building is limited. OTOH, browsing a paper encyclopedia, exactly that way, is how I prepared for wiki tbh. Have nice festivities for you too, my fellow bourgeois elite ors, DePiep (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC).

Request for CCDC identifier in chemical-related infoboxes[]

Chemicals with crystal structures have their CCDC numbers. The CCDC number is an identifier for a single crystal structure per the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. See also P6852 (Wikidata). --Leiem (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

One issue with that suggestion is that CCDC numbers are not single-valued per chemical. For example (at an extreme!) 5-Methyl-2-((2-nitrophenyl)amino)-3-thiophenecarbonitrile has at least 13 IDs listed here. Many chemicals, of course, have no CCDC number at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
At WD: [1] (talk:P6852 (Wikidata): not that extreme, max=5, mostly 1. What could the list look like in chembox? wikilink(s), tiny image(s)? -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
... or add another EL like Tris(acetylacetonato)iron(III)[2]? -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about this, we already have in Template:Chembox Structure these entries : | Structure_ref = | CrystalStruct = | SpaceGroup = etc.
Would it not be better to create a new template called {{CCDC}} which would automatically generate the correct citation when supplied with the CCDC number? Then this could be the value at Structure_ref and would remain consistent with other existing Chemboxes. We do something similar with our template {{PPDB}} which links to entries in the pesticides properties database. Multiple entries would even be consistent with this approach, just by reusing the template or allowing it to take multiple values. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Good plan. First re {{Chembox}} solutions: better not spend too much energy on this. Even if {{Chembox}} were more flex by being Lua module (is projected), then the same issue plays: not enough space, too many datapoints, lots of non-infobox info there. A "single" data row could be added always, but in the longer term we need to change the infobox drastically.
Then, about a dedicated template {{CCDC}}: it could also pull its data from wikidata (with smart handling, option local overwrite, etc). Chembox already does this with E number, ECHA InfoCard ID, DTXSID (CompTox Chemicals Dashboard) (more here).
Third, about out-of-the-chembox solutions: {{PPDB}} (~160 tc's), for example in Urea § External links, is a good start. For a few years, I am pondering to add section ==Data sheet== to chemical articles, where there is enough space & reason to have lots of data (graphs, lists, ExternalLinks, merged separate data pages). That too could be automated (a big template, organising much data & graphics, like a Chembox let loose). -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: this is pretty much what I suggest with the discussion on the datapages now. This is too much, and too specialized to be in an infobox. On Ice we say "Ice may be any one of the 19 (Metcalfe, Tom (9 March 2021). "Exotic crystals of 'ice 19' discovered". Live Science.) known solid crystalline phases of water, or in an amorphous solid state at various densities." .. now is ice in itself notable enough, but solid structure of 5-methyl-2-((2-nitrophenyl)amino)-3-thiophenecarbonitrile is never going to get anywhere, it is far beyond an encyclopedia to discuss those here. Datapages there serve a function, with a 'chembox let loose' or another structured way of displaying data that is 'too specialized' to put on the mainpage, but where either the data is of interest or where a short discussion of the fact (I can imagine that it could be interesting to read that there are 13 known structures of 5-Methyl-2-((2-nitrophenyl)amino)-3-thiophenecarbonitrile and 'why' (in fact). Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beetstra: You're right in data that must be available. Minor diffs about solution (say, page & layout).
First, about {{PPDB}}: this give some external ID+link only. Not fit for article body. (That template is quite ugly & bad btw, like formatting & sourcing). At least it should show the external ID (as CASRN does in IB Chembox). Projected {{CCDC}} could do the same (provided: database is OK, good formatting & showing, etc.).
Also, as I say elsewhere today, I think dedicated article section ==Data sheet== is a good place to add data. Only huge data sheets should fork into a separate page (water). Likely this section is structured (less verbose), can handle all chemical data, can be automated & use formatting templates, like an infobox let loose, can unload IB Chembox (halve its content :-) ). -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
That is also an approach. Start with a ==Data sheet== section, and if that starts taking about 10-20% of article length, then split it out into a dedicated datapage. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
:-) Growing size is best indicator for forking into a DP. Article quality required anyway. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
But there is also no problem with just skipping the step - populate a DP directly from the infobox, and delete the data from the infobox which is 'excessive' (vapour pressures at 20 different temperatures, leave only RT; solubility in water at 10 different temperatures, leave only RT). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Help needed[]

Wonder if there is a solution to these these templatestyles stripmarker in. I posted a message to BrownHairedGirl who suggested, ...since there are 111 pages with this problem, some remedy is needed. I suggest that you ask at WT:CHEM?
Can this be fixed and how remedy in the future? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the template (for example {{chem2}}) is specifically NOT supposed to be used in citations — see template documentation page. In ordinary text, use of that template turns CO2 into CO2, in other words it adds subscripts to the text that would otherwise render without it. You can of course use alternative <sub> and </sub> tags to achieve CO2 and that works everywhere (look at my source code to see the difference). Some pages with the problem, for example Carbon capture and storage show the error literally dozens of times, which leads me to suspect that at an earlier time the problem didn't exist since I would have thought that the ors working on that page would have noticed and commented! One laborious method to fix this will be to use your search and go through all the hits fixing them one-by-one. Before resorting to that, I suggest we ask DePiep to give it consideration, as our template expert. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The #Test below shows, it is {{Chem2}}. Not checked (yet) if its this cause in all 111 issues. As note, {{Chem2}} should not be used in <ref>s. Ever. I am not aware of a solution (todo: is plain <sub>/<sup> viable?). -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

test[]

From Tellurate#TeO4−5_ion, current ref#12:

DEMO01 ... as in Li4TeO5 and TEST01Ag4TeO5[1]
DEMO02 ... remove Chem2 altogether: TEST02-Ag4TeO5[2]
DEMO03: Chem2 expanded:
 <templatestyles src="Module:Chem2/styles.css"/><span class="chemf nowrap">Ag<sub class="template-chem2-sub">2</sub>Te<sub class="template-chem2-sub">2</sub>O<sub class="template-chem2-sub">6</sub></span>
-DePiep (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC), -DePiep (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
DEMO04 Yes, I think so, although tedious to create, as TEST04 here[3]

References

  1. ^ TEST01-Weil, Matthias (2007). "New Silver Tellurates – The Crystal Structures of a Third Modification of Ag2Te2O6 and of Ag4TeO5". Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie. 633 (8): 1217–1222. doi:10.1002/zaac.200700106. ISSN 0044-2313. {{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 75 (help)
  2. ^ TEST02Weil, Matthias (2007). "New Silver Tellurates – The Crystal Structures of a Third Modification of Ag2Te2O6 and of Ag4TeO5". Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie. 633 (8): 1217–1222. doi:10.1002/zaac.200700106. ISSN 0044-2313.
  3. ^ TEST04-Weil, Matthias (2007). "New Silver Tellurates – The Crystal Structures of a Third Modification of Ag2Te2O6 and of Ag4TeO5". Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie. 633 (8): 1217–1222. doi:10.1002/zaac.200700106. ISSN 0044-2313.

Cleanout by replacement in ref (Chem2 into sub/sup)[]

The last time we had global changes to make, Project Osprey and I did them by hand, with one of us starting a the top of the search and the other from the bottom, until we met in the middle. I'd be willing to do this if other(s) helped: 111 is not too bad and most articles only have a limited number of instances. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've not been here much over Christmas and this discussion now has many sub-sections. Is there still something you need me to do? --Project Osprey (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Many of these appear to be due to the {{CO2}} template calling Chem2. I propose rewriting it to {{nowrap|{{#if:{{{link|}}}|[[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]]|[[CO<sub>2</sub>]]}}}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> ---does that look correct? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett Your solution would work but (I think) leave the references without their subscript 2. So I suggest that rather than alter the {{CO2}} template, we go through the articles from the search provided by Lotje and make the fixes in a more robust way, using super/subscripts. I see you have started to do this and I have also begun. Anyone can chip in by re-running the search until it gives zero hits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: is Space-based measurements of carbon dioxide correct now? Thanks for taking a closer look to see if it is okay now. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Lotje: Yes, seems perfect. The templatestyles stripmarker in warnings in the references have all gone and you'll notice that the hidden category "CS1 errors: invisible characters" has disappeared from your revision (if you have the hidden categories visible through your preferences). Thanks for helping to sort this out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Glad I could be of any help. Lotje (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I cleaned out the last 4 this morning. Happy New Year every one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

And in all this discussion, no-one thought to advertise this at {{CO2}} or any of the other related templates? The first I heard of this was that a massive number of articles I watch suddenly had the template replaced with their HTML equivalent. Even worse, it wasn't just the few places where there was a conflict with the {{cite}} family of templates but wholesale removal. This is a bad way to do business.

At User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett#Stripmarker_error, GM says that he dislikes the {{chem}} family of templates and replaces them whenever he can with HTML equivalents. I am of the opposite opinion and dislike HTML mark-up in what is suppose to be wiki mark-up. Using HTML mark-up in wiki pages is promoting form over function. Templates allow us to globally adjust how we display such things without having to tediously search and replace. It also allows us to add future features like links, tooltips, etc without having to go on awkward search and replace missions. If the chem series of templates have a problem, then we fix the problem at the source. If chem can't/won't be fixed, then the next solution to look at is to simply use the HTML constructs within the CO2 and similar templates. Easier then the search and destroy mission currently under way. Also easier to undo when the root problem is fixed. And far less disturbing to hundreds of articles.  Stepho  talk  21:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The main reason for my dislike, is because on my browser when I do ctrl-F to search for a chemical formula, it does not find it when formatted with chem or chem2. This can probably be fixed in those templates as mentioned above. What I understand is it is something to do with how to get superscripts positioned directly above subscripts. And if this is fixed, it may well work in citations as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you give an example of how you search for a chemical formula?
I'm not sure of the exact details of the problem but I'm willing to help look for a solution. Here are a few ways to display superscripts above subscripts.
method mark-up result
CSS <div style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;margin:0 0.2em 0.4ex;text-align:right;"><span><sup style="display:block">14</sup></span><span><sub style="display:block">6</sub></span></div>C
146
C
{{su}} {{su|p=14|b=6|a=r}}C 14
6
C
{{chem}} {{chem|14|6|C}} 14
6
C
{{nuclide}} {{nuclide|C|14|bl=6}} 14
6
C
There are, of course, more ways. nuclide and chem use su to do the super/subscripts. But it might be something else in chem that is triggering the problem in cite.
Does anybody use chem directly in cites or just indirectly through CO2 and similar? The simplest solution may be to make {{CO2}} just use CO<sub>2</sub> and similar for {{NOx}} and others. It would loose some flexibility for general prose (limits future features mentioned above) but simplifies use in cites.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Testing what triggers the cite warning:
method mark-up result
HTML {{cite |title=CO<sub>2</sub>}} CO2
{{su}} {{cite |title=CO{{su|b=2}}}} CO
2
{{chem}} {{cite |title={{chem|C|O|2}}}} CO
2
{{chem2}} {{cite |title={{chem2|CO2}}}} CO2 {{citation}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 1 (help)
{{CO2}} (chem2) {{cite |title={{CO2}}}} CO2
{{CO2}} (chem) {{cite |title={{CO2/sandbox}}}} CO2
Which shows that it is the module chem2 that triggers it, not the chem template. So, simple solution could be to change the CO2 template to use chem.
GB: we can work on the search and number stacking as separate issues from the cite problem.  Stepho  talk  03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Now it looks like search is working for chem2, but not for chem. SO thanks to those that rectified that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Some time recently I converted a bunch of sub/super scripts to {{chem}} and then I discovered {{chem2}} which I found to be significantly superior. You've added yet another reason to prefer chem2 to chem. YBG (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A friendly administrator has converted {{CO2}} from chem2 back to chem, as per my request. This removes the conflict with the cite family of templates.  Stepho  talk  21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Methanediol article probably needs updating[]

I haven't read the paper yet but it looks like the article for Methanediol probably needs to be updated, as it appears that it has been synthesized in pure form. See [3] and specifically [4]. I'm posting it here because otherwise I will certainly forget about it. BirdValiant (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol: disambiguating links[]

Hi. Alcohol is now a disambiguation page as the result of an RM, and at this point several hundred links to it still need to be disambiguated. Most are straightforward, but there are also some for which it isn't clear, at least to a layperson, whether the general class of chemicals is meant or ethanol specifically. Any help is appreciated! Lennart97 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For those interested: the RM ("per WP:DAB: there is no primary topic between drug and chemical"), & the resulting moves
-DePiep (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
We're now down to "only" a few thousand links to "Alcohol", or only 800–900ish from article-space. Those who were proponents of this move should take it upon themselves to spend the time to learn about and act on what they proposed. The amount of time and effort needed to clean up after fairly innocuous usage should have been raised in that RM (it's been a salient objection in at least one other recent one). DABresolver isn't working for me (won't let me submit my changes). DMacks (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth a move review? If there was no consensus, and there was not consensus against the status quo, then the result should have been not moved. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a good close to me; no consensus on what the primary topic is means there is no primary topic. The links I've fixed so far in any case seem to confirm this, as many are indeed intended for alcohol (drug).
For anyone who wants to help clean up, I advise DisamAssist, which works very efficiently in cases like this. Lennart97 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
ehm, DA has no save-button. Clicking "change" changes the wikitext .. and saves it right away. No visual feedback ... Is this legal? (let's RTFM oh wait). -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is. Be careful though; I don't think alcohol here refers to the general class of compounds, but rather to the drug. Lennart97 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: one more note on DA usage: the "intentional link to DAB" option creates a link to Alcohol (disambiguation), which redirects to Alcohol, per WP:INTDAB. This is for intentional links to a disambiguation page in articles. However, redirects such as Alchohol should redirect to the dabpage directly, since otherwise you get a double redirect. So in DA, redirects should be skipped instead. Lennart97 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Enough. No use in others having to check my s. If only there were a DA guide. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I noticed the one article and a redirect, but otherwise had and have no intention of checking your s. I think the INTDAB/redirect thing is the only thing missing from the usage guide really, and since the creator doesn't seem to be active I'll see if I can add it. DABsolver, by the way, is an alternative which is less efficient but possibly more user-friendly. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
On a mostly unrelated note, but since I'm here anyway, is Pyranol a notable topic? Lennart97 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Not only not notable but with no sources, no incoming links and hardly any views. Can you remind me how we get rid of such junk, Lennart97? Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
So, I have WP:PRODed it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, PROD is the way to go :) Lennart97 (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
In this case, checking me (as in 'following me ing') was useful, I got four or five reverts. That tools is like irresponsible. And no, I dunno about pyranolor chemicals. That's just an attitude I choose to meet interesting people. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Only 14 links left. (And a big thanks to Mike Turnbull for fixing over 250 of them today). Lennart97 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

All  Done. there may be some where others would disagree with my choice of disambiguation but I doubt anyone will check (or care ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Only Piperine still has one. Is that alcohol (chemistry) or ethanol? Lennart97 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Without a source, I have removed the relevant data figure. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about the periodic table in the lede of the PT article: 18 columns or 32?[]

Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?

The rfc is here. Sandbh (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TFA nomination for Synthetic diamond[]

I have nominated Synthetic diamond to run as today's featured article for an unspecified date. Please join the discussion by clicking here. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)