Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    Article alerts

    Articles for deletion

    (7 more...)

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Templates for discussion

    Files for discussion

    Good article reassessments

    Peer reviews

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (61 more...)

    Chemical compound categories in set categories

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

    Is this an official WP policy? If not, I suspect that strictly enforcing this separation will cause more issues than it solves. While I support strong organisation of categories within a topic (e.g. my multiple posts earlier about functional group categorisation), those are non-trivial distinctions relevant to someone who might be browsing e.g. Category:Esters. If someone is looking at a category describing chemical compounds, and gets a list of chemical compounds, it's important that all those chemical compounds are accurate! But anyone who is looking into a list of compounds should know to exclude a man from Liverpool unless they are going into existential questions. On the other hand, someone looking for e.g. general background on alkanes probably doesn't want to look in two different places, one strictly for their chemistry and one for everything else. To me, you should be able to get to a category named Methane from a category named Hydrocarbons, because the category Methane is about a hydrocarbon even if everything in it isn't a hydrocarbon itself. Fishsicles (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is a guideline. For that use case it's convenient to have those articles there, but it pollutes search results with deepcat and other automated browsing methods. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as the responsibility of the developers of the automated tool. In my opinion, the concern of contributors should always first and foremost be people browsing Wikipedia directly. If the set category/topic category distinction is important for the backend, there should be a way to explicitly distinguish them in the frontend, e.g. an argument in the [[Category:]] tag, that does not impose restrictions on content and organisation from the user side. Fishsicles (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Searchability is important for maintaining Wikipedia. I was searching through articles about chemicals to try and find ones without structure diagrams, but there were so many people, products and companies in the results that I was having a hard time. It seems to me that the most painless way to fix issues like this is to take these 100 or so topic categories out of set categories, rather than develop a new argument for the category tag that then needs to be added to all the same pages. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit off-topic, but would Category:Chembox articles without image be helpful for you here? (Can use search if you need to narrow down further, e.g. carbon-containing non-drug non-proteins.) Preimage (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me the problem is downstream (uh, no pun intended) of poor categorization: "natural gas" is in category "methane", when TBH we should probably have "methane" in category "natural gas". TBH a simple fix might be to scan for all pairs (topic category t, set category s) with t ∈ s, and then swap them so that s ∈ t. Is that too simplistic? Do you know any other examples of this problem? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, Coca-Cola used to be in the caffeine category before I removed it. The other way around wouldn't work in my opinion. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help on new article for Tsugaruite

    Hi. I'm in no way a chemist, but started a sandbox version of a new article on the mineral Tsugaruite here: User talk:MisawaSakura/Sandbox2. I could use some help beefing it up before moving to mainspace. Feel free to directly edit my sandbox. Two questions: 1) are there any practical uses for this mineral at the moment and 2) is mindat considered a reliable source? Thanks! MisawaSakura (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pb, As, S, and Cl are abundantly available as by-products from higher value minerals so I doubt this one has any special demand as an ore if you aren't turning anything up for unique structural properties.
    Mindat is a good source for properties but I would not consider it one for notability of specific minerals, similar to e.t. PubChem. Fishsicles (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. There is very little info on Tsugaruite. Not sure I can make a decent article on it. MisawaSakura (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the structure of those non-metals As S and Cl? It is an unusual combination, so it would be good to describe the nature of ions and covalent bonds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I need help. I don't understand chemistry well enough to do that. I stumbled across tsugaruite while looking up info on Aomori Prefecture. I have a couple refs in the sandbox.MisawaSakura (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to doi:10.3749/canmin.2000005 to check details, but the abstract suggests the structure is Very Complicated - 8x15x38 is a huge unit cell even for a zeolite, let alone something without silicon or oxygen. I have to assume sulfur's doing a lot of the heavy structural lifting. Fishsicles (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THANK YOU! I already emailed Cristian Biagioni (ref 2, the one you refer to) to ask for a copy of his article, so we'll see what happens. MisawaSakura (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that even if the structure seems notable - and I'll restate that it certainly seems unusual, going off the numbers I can see - an article claiming such is probably going to run afoul of WP:SYNTH unless you can find a review or something that discusses its peculiarities in wider context. Hunting further resources turned up doi:10.1127/0935-1221/2008/0020-1778, which doesn't have too much to say but is at least a better citation for "this seems weird" than Wikipedia User Fishsicles. Fishsicles (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fishsicles Thanks again! I've never had an intention of trying to write a robust detailed article on this as I know it's beyond my knowledge level. But I am knowledgeable enough to write a short stub/start article that meets the DYK requirement of 1500 characters of prose, which I've now done. I also find this particular mineral very interesting, for some reason. The full text of the doi link you just found is here, in which it says "The crystal structure of tsugaruite is unknown, but is probably complex as is indicated by the large unit cell(V=4678 Å3).3". Note that article is 13 years older than the one I emailed Biagioni for. I hope Cristian Biagioni sends me his article because I can only find an abstract of that one. For now I have enough for a DYK and I could add a couple more sentences if Biagioni sends me his article (I'll let you know if he does); but beyond that a science person would have to work the article. I'll make you a co nom on the DYK. Thanks so much again! MisawaSakura (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the acknowledgement, but I'd prefer not to be listed on any suggestions I haven't contributed directly to. Fishsicles (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a really complicated thing with non-stoichiometry, a big unit cell, obtained from super-obsure locations. And the aspects that might possibly be worth fretting over (Cl-As bonding?), charge balance, nature of the disorder (Cl vs S in a big cell would take a very skilled crystallographer) would require someone with deep knowledge. So, I worry that developing this article by someone who is "no way a chemist" seems like a really bad idea. Just leave it alone and work on subjects where you do understand the topic. Also I am unsure if it is worth fretting over. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tentatively call it notable from the claim that it's the first (well described) chlorosulfosalt of lead and arsenic, but I'm pretty sure that "chlorosulfosalt" itself is a category of maybe ten minerals? It's definitely beyond my ken to delve into the details though. It's got some unusual properties, but they're unusual properties for geologists and crystallographers to poke at a bit more, rather than unusual properties that merit a full page on Wikipedia.
    That said, there's a lot of mineral redlinks, and I can't help but wonder if some kind of "list of minerals" pages similar to the way akin to e.g. 10000#Selected numbers in the range 10001-19999 is done, using the Mindat version of N-S? The current mineral classification pages have no shortage of issues beyond the redlinks - I'm still tilting at windmills about who moved the non-tetrahedral vanadates into the phosphates class, and having a larger restructuring plan would greatly appeal to me. Fishsicles (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemical intermediate vs. Reaction intermediate

    I recently came across Chemical intermediate in the new pages queue after it was split from Reaction intermediate by Bernanke's Crossbow. From my brief search online, it seems like there is some overlap in how the terms reaction intermediate and chemical intermediate are used, so it might make more sense to cover them in the same article. I'm not very knowledgeable about chemistry, however, so I'm not in the best position to evaluate the sources. Can any WikiProject editors provide their perspective on whether the articles should be split? Thanks. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    These are two different concepts, though the former is very poorly sourced - this definition of "chemical intermediate" is mostly used in an economics context, while the sole Britannica link describes the chemical sense shown in reaction intermediate. The compounds a market analyst would call "chemical intermediates" are simply products of one reaction and reactants in another; nothing a chemist is going to label a reaction intermediate is going to (meaningfully) last into the next process unit, let alone survive a trip to "other industries". Fishsicles (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the hatnotes to make the best case for a split. Without some reliable sources I suggest that chemical intermediate could be deleted as not notable. Maybe Intermediate chemical would be clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your comments. If I've understood you correctly Fishsicles, it seems like "chemical intermediate" is a more niche industry term. The fact that Britannica uses the term as a synonym for "reaction intermediate" seems to reinforce this. I agree with Johnjbarton that the sourcing is very weak, so unless better sources can be found I'm inclined to merge chemical intermediate back into reaction intermediate. If the article is going to remain separate, better sourcing definitely needs to be added. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bernanke's Crossbow: Are you able to provide any additional sources that reinforce the need for a separate article on chemical intermediate? Right now I'm inclined to undo the split. It seems reasonable to just include a section in the reaction intermediate article about how the term is used in the chemicals industry without making it a separate article. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zeibgeist: Why are you even involved in this discussion? Bernanke's Crossbow is a pro in the chemistry editing sphere, and you have no track record. If you need us to explain the difference between a chemical intermediate and a reaction intermediate, then you are out of your depth. I just dont understand editors who take it upon themselves to cross-examine technical articles well outside of their knowledge base. What is the point?--Smokefoot (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a new page reviewer, and Chemical intermediate is in the new pages queue because it was recently expanded from a redirect. The fact that I'm not an expert in chemistry is precisely the reason I opened this discussion – so that people with expertise can help me make an informed decision. This kind of rude commentary really isn't helpful. Zeibgeist (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smokefoot: If I don't make a decision on whether to review the article, that decision will fall on another reviewer (who will also probably not be an expert in chemistry). This is Wikipedia after all; most of us are not subject matter experts. With that in mind, do you have anything productive to contribute to this discussion? Zeibgeist (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Zeibgeist did exactly the right thing in this case. Given the lame state of Chemical intermediate, the questions raised are the right ones and in the right venue. I say kudos to the editor! Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely prefer a split article, even a stub, rather than combining the two pages - the two terms are very different, even if the existing stub doesn't have much to talk about it. I suspect there's plenty of secondary sources about e.g. the size of "chemical intermediate" markets that exist on the economics side of things, I just don't have them to hand - and it's difficult to assess sources on economic data for their reliability, as there's a lot of investorbait slop on the open Internet and I'm not really inclined to pay a "reputable" analyst firm for their reports just to cite a wiki page. Fishsicles (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some things that probably would justify, e.g.https://www.britannica.com/science/chemical-intermediate does ("All the substances generated by one step and used for the succeeding step are considered intermediates", clear distinction from a reaction intermediate that cannot be isolated) .
    Note that pharmaceutical chemists also talk about 'chemical intermediates' as the intermediate compounds between starting point and final API. Some of those chemicals also have no other reason to be made then to be converted further, and often will not even leave the lab where they are made. Sometimes these compounds are just stable enough to observe (spectroscopically) but not stable enough to properly isolate, they react A and B, observe until C is optimally formed and then add D to convert C to E. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all for your comments. It seems like there's rough consensus to have separate pages, so I went ahead and marked Chemical intermediate as reviewed. Additional sourcing would definitely be helpful if it can be found. Zeibgeist (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Edit conflict) Wow, this discussion proceeded far while I slept. No, I don't know any sources immediately. But this is not the first time that a new page reviewer has complained that my split produced a poorly-sourced draft, so I'm going to try to dig up some sources at the local college library. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that would be much appreciated! Zeibgeist (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think sourcing this split may be more difficult than we think. "Chemical intermediate" has two meanings, not one. Every "reaction intermediate" is also a "chemical intermediate" in many sources. If we had a disambiguation page for "chemical intermediate" then reaction intermediate would be the main use case according to sources by a wide margin.
    A web search for "chemical intermediate in chemical production" will have links to suppliers of chemicals that describe their products as "chemical intermediates". Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) defines an "transported isolated intermediate" as an intermediate not meeting the criteria of a non-isolated intermediate and transported between or supplied to other sites. They also define a on-site isolated intermediate. I think we could use the REACH definitions to support the notability of a page named isolated chemical intermediate or isolated intermediate, then change the hatnote on reaction intermediate to link it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Well, the main thing is that the patroler would "appreciate" our efforts). More seriously, lots of terms could have multiple interpretations, but in this case, there is little room for ambiguity. A "reaction intermediate" is certainly a chemical, but no professional chemist would call such an intermediate a "chemical intermediate" because that would be redundant terminology. At least IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think the main issue here is that search engines see "chemical intermediate" and then immediately leap to "reaction intermediate" as their suggested topic; I'm certainly not familiar with chemical literature using the term explicitly. Searching for e.g. "chemical intermediates market" gives more concrete examples of the "chemical intermediate" usage but I'm not calling any of them WP:RS. Fishsicles (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Lyonium ion § Proposed merge of Lyate ion with Lyonium ion

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lyonium ion § Proposed merge of Lyate ion with Lyonium ion, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong unsourced claim on derivative (chemistry)

    As I'm gearing up for another bout with Simple English's chemistry pages, I've noticed a particular claim on enwiki: 

    In chemistry, a derivative is a compound that is derived from a similar compound by a chemical reaction.
In the past, derivative also meant a compound that can be imagined to arise from another compound, if one atom or group of atoms is replaced with another atom or group of atoms, but modern chemical language now uses the term structural analog for this meaning, thus eliminating ambiguity.[citation needed]

    While this may be a formal definition - and if so, definitely needs a citation - I'd hardly call the use of "derivative" to mean "we traded some parts out on a blackboard" something only seen "in the past". It's certainly not how it's de facto used on Wikipedia, in categories like Category:Nitrobenzene derivatives - if someone can make flutamide from nitrobenzene in one reaction I'd love to see their notes.

    I'd normally look to IUPAC for prescriptivism in chemical terminology, but IUPAC has no official definition of a derivative or structural analog. I suspect this definition might be something from the legal world on defining derivatives of a drug (where the "ambiguity" mentioned is much more of a problem)?

    If this language has been deprecated, it should have a very robust source backing it - otherwise we should probably represent the practical usage rather than a particular rigid framework. As much as I do love rigid frameworks. Fishsicles (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the concern about stating which (if either) meaning of "derivative" is obsolescent, even if "analog(ue)"is a more recent and non-ambiguous term for one of them. You're right that there are legal entanglements when a term has an imprecise meaning. See doi:10.1039/9781839166631-00153 for some discussion of that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This source itself seems to contradict the idea that one notion is obsolete - per the abstract, "its precise meaning depends on the circumstances", which suggests a lack of a single standardised meaning in 2022, 12 years after the relevant edit, Special:Diff/393553874. I'm not sure there's good reason to leave an uncited assertion from a banned IP user standing. Fishsicles (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how much banned IP comes into it since that range wasn't blocked until 15 years after this edit, but I agree that unsourced claims as significant as this should be commented out at minimum.. -- Reconrabbit 19:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template to render molecules

    Example output of the template

    Scribunto recently added support for outputting images. I've been trying to come up with cool uses for that. I made a template (based on CineMol) that takes in a .mol file and outputs a visualization of the molecule: Module:Sandbox/Bawolff/CineMol(edit: now Module:CineMol). I don't know much about chemistry, would that template be useful for this wikiproject? Bawolff (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty exciting. It makes it easier to upload views of 3D structures while potentially unifying the presentation style in infoboxes. Sourcing 3D structure coordinates is not too difficult, but it is somewhat obscure. I would rely on the Protein Data Bank for most of the molecules I would be interested in. The first concern that comes to mind is if the image generation slows the loading of the article too much. 3D views are nice, but aren't worth sacrificing reading experience.
    As an aside, since you mentioned you're looking for uses for the new functionality, automatic generation of 2D line drawings and reaction schematics would be very desirable for me. The ability to input a few SMILES strings into a template and output a schematic would save a lot of time for many enzyme reaction articles. The primary reason why I don't add images to articles with inline reaction schemes like Indole 2,3-dioxygenase is that it takes up too much time to generate images. If I could reduce the work to to copying and pasting SMILES strings and setting wikilinks I would spot fix every one I come across. ⇌ Synpath 02:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to clarify I wouldn't put proteins into this template but their ligands. ⇌ Synpath 02:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PDB ligand: ERY
    Playing with the module a bit the most salient issue is including the full text of the .sdf file as input. It would be more editor friendly to host a text file on Commons or Wikidata. The easy incorporation of CSS is very nice for us dark mode enjoyers. ⇌ Synpath 02:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Updated image to use new PDB ligand code functionality. The full text coordinates issue is partly solved. ⇌ Synpath 21:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the ideal would be supporting the smile format as wikidata already has a property for that and it also seems to be a much more concise format. At first glance though converting between smile and mol seems a bit complex, but i'll have to read more about it. We can only use .mol text from commons in a template at wikipedia if its in a Data namespace, which is a bit unideal, but i guess workable. I agree that putting the .mol directly on the article feels bad. I guess one could create a template for each compound, and store the .mol in the template but that also feels not great.
    As far as darkmode goes, we can make this support dark mode. Is there an official colour scheme for this sort of think in dark mode. For that matter, is there an official light mode colour scheme for this type of diagram that Wikipedia uses? I just copied what cinemol does.
    For performance - there are two things. First of all this puts images directly into the article which can theoretically slow down page loads. Generally these images are small enough (~10kb) that i think the effect would be insignificant. Second, the template is more complex than the average template so it may slow down parse time (by ~500ms). However, most of the time a view does not parse the page, so this should not slow things down in the average case. Of course all of this needs more real world testing on real data to be sure. Bawolff (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to line-bond drawings when converting from SMILES. There are existing open source packages that do this (imperfectly, but it is a hard problem to solve well!). Converting from SMILES to 3D coordinates is something I haven't seen yet, but I also haven't actively looked for that.
    Storing the coordinates in a template is a decent enough solution, but it would be more appropriate to store that in a more searchable and accessible space like Wikidata. A wiki I know next to nothing about, so take that with salt.
    Re: dark mode, there's no official color scheme, but lightening the shade of grey representing carbon would help dark mode contrast. The outlining in the cartoon look helps a lot with that.
    Re: performance, at least personally these images haven't hampered my experience, though part of that may be the caching. ⇌ Synpath 12:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think that those images are not helpful, possibly even deceptive and possibly original research. Maybe I can be convinced otherwise, but my impression is that these images are used as a substitute for conveying information, which is our core job. If one wants to contribute, then describe properties, uses, preps, reactions, safety, etc. I would welcome arguments for the inclusion, much less the proliferation, of such eye candy.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating an image like this is no more original research than taking a photograph of a landscape and has similar issues with deceptiveness as photos. Projecting the 3D onto 2D necessarily loses information. As for helpfulness, it does vary from person to person, but 3D views of molecules generally help to communicate properties (sterics, at least). They are relevant. ⇌ Synpath 20:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Synpath I think wikidata mostly wants their properties to be about one sentence at the most, so i think mol files are too big. However I managed to import PDB's Chemical Component Dictionary into commons, which is linked together with wikidata via d:Property:P3636. So its now possible for the template to use a pdb ligand id, or wikidata if wikidata has that property filled out. Bawolff (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes the template a lot easier to use! ⇌ Synpath 20:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see many problems with this type of image rendering and few advantages. The example Bawolff used is benzylpenicillin and that article already has an accurate 3-D structure based on an X-ray source (click on the image here to see the details). Note that Bawolff's space-filling version a) has used different co-ordinates and b) does not expand to a larger size or give image details when clicked. Molfiles obtained from most sources will not correspond to a verifiable 3D set of coordinates but will be as drawn by an unknown author. Incidentally, ChemSpider stores molfiles and Wikipedia articles should always have a ChemSpider ID in the Chembox/Drugbox so in principle the molfile could be obtained from there rather than Wikidata. Our Chemboxes are already set up to provide Jmol links so that users can not only see coloured ball-and-stick representations but can manipulate them by rotation to see the "back" of the image, which in my opinion is much more useful than a single static picture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see there being a problem with auto-generating a static thumbnail-sized visualization based on coordinates deposited in a curated database. Something like the PDB Chemical Component Dictionary would be a reliable and verifiable source of molecular coordinates. Among others, I'm sure. Also, the image could be made to automatically link to Jmol or do so in a caption alongside the sourcing, since Jmol is an external link. The automatic image could be overwritten with a higher-quality, custom-made version when an editor has the time to do so.
    That said, I don't think this could be easily integrated into the chembox since there isn't a dedicated image field for a 3d view. We wouldn't know which boxes should already overwrite an automatically generated image.
    Performance is still my main concern, but barring that I believe this module is a net benefit. ⇌ Synpath 20:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added support for clicking to zoom in, as well as the ability to specify an additional caption when zoomed in. The template now also has a link parameter to allow it to link somewhere else if desired. The copyright situation of the ChemSpider database is a bit unclear to me, I don't think we can use it in an automated fashion. Wikidata is used to find the pdb ligand id, which is then used to lookup the mol file in the pdb chemical component dictionary (or more specificly a copy of it that I uploaded to commons). The actual mol files are not coming from Wikidata. Alternatively the template supports directly specifying the pdb id instead of using wikidata. Bawolff (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question remains: why do this? "I don't see there being a problem" is hardly justification. Showing one of myriad conformations implies some insight that is not available to the contributing editor. I say: (1) contribute core content (properties, uses, preps, reactions, safety), (2) improve our English, or (3) many articles where some improved graphics are needed, lots of badly drawn ChemDraws associated with organic mechanisms.
    Maybe I am too old fashioned, but ChemDraw and equivalents rule. I am repeating myself.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Puff piece patrol: Ionocaloric refrigeration

    Page has a lot of potential-application promises and few specifics or sources, and may have WP:COI issues from researchers cited. I will be looking into it myself but more eyes would be appreciated. Fishsicles (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly AI. Since the original paper only has 29 cites I think it fails notability. Either PROD or AfD.
    N.B., I love the name PPP, can I join? Ldm1954 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The PPP welcomes all who embrace our creed: "Wikipedia is not here to pump up someone's next grant application." Fishsicles (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Google scholar has 30 results for "ionocaloric refrigeration", some of which are secondary sources. So, however bad the article currently is, something could probably be salvaged. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest that we discuss a bit further what we consider as WP:SIGCOV for pages such as this. I don't think there is any policy or an essay, and I have seen claims that something is notable ranging from a small number of (peer reviewed) cites to not notable despite having hundreds or even a thousand.
    I suggest criteria similar to when we look at academics for WP:PROF#C1. I have seen arguments that "a number of papers with more than 100 cites" starts to be impactful, with > 1K definitely impactful. Hence to me we should use a cutoff of at least 100 to justify an argument of WP:SIGCOV for a scientific advance. Comments welcome, maybe later this can be opened up to a wider discussion if we have any consensus here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This overview
    • Defay, E. (2022). Cool it, with a pinch of salt. Science, 378(6626), 1275-1275.
    does a good job of putting the ionocaloric effect in perspective. A topic with this level of coverage and fitting in to the overall story of refrigeration and caloric effects is notable.
    I doubt it was AI generated since most of the material was added by a COI editor. In addition to the COI, the primary issue with Ionocaloric refrigeration is, as usual, lack of sources.
    Note that Elastocaloric materials was created by a now-banned editor and has some structural similarity. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Quillbot and Scaling.ai indicate 95% & 100% AI respectively for the Overview section, quite definitive. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So does that mean that AI wrote this section or that AI learned about this topic from the Science article + the Wikipedia article written by the same person? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The web sites detect AI from various characteristics in the style of writing. They are not infallible, and can be confused by math/citations, but useful. When two give such a high score it means that it was almost certainly written by AI. There is also GPTzero (which marked the page as 84% AI generated 16% Mixed 0% Human) as a third source; there are probably other web pages you can use. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between AI generated and COI; I dislike speculation, but I can imagine a major LLM use case is prompting it to summarise something written for an academic audience into something for a general audience. (Certainly I've seen enough students try and do this...) Fishsicles (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also an article in Physics Today (March 2023). However, the Defay 2022 article in Science and this one are published soon after the original paper was published in Science in December 2022 so I don't think this article yet meets the SIGCOV requirement using WP:GNG criteria, i.e. is this article WP:TOOSOON? Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely leaning WP:TOOSOON. As I've done a bit more reading, it does appear to be a reasonably novel approach to refrigeration - at the very least, they've built a working prototype, which is more than can be said for many "potential applications" puff pieces, but my subjective judgment of "interesting, potentially promising" doesn't mean much if it stays a curiosity.
    On consideration, my preferred solution is currently a page for caloric refrigeration in general, which can discuss this topic as well as the aforementioned elastocaloric materials and related experimental work. Looking at electrocaloric effect also sets off some of my puff piece alarms, although that page at least demonstrates to my satisfaction that there's a lot of ongoing work in the field. The magnetocaloric effect could also be discussed there in brief, as by far the most mature example. Fishsicles (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When does a scientific advance have enough SIGCOV?

    I have moved this from the PPP topic above to get more specific input.

    I suggest that we discuss a bit further what we consider as WP:SIGCOV for pages such as ionocaloric refrigeration. I don't think there is any policy or an essay, and I have seen claims that something is notable ranging from a small number of (peer reviewed) cites to not notable despite having hundreds or even a thousand.

    One option is criteria similar to when we look at academics for WP:PROF#C1. I have seen arguments that "a number of papers with more than 100 cites" starts to be impactful, with > 1K definitely impactful. Hence to me we should use a cutoff of at least 100 to justify an argument of WP:SIGCOV for a scientific advance.

    An alternative, that is close to the same is criteria used for notability of chemicals, e.g. the ongoing AfD here (although I am not sure what numbers would be used).

    Comments welcome, maybe later this can be opened up to a wider discussion if we have any consensus here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At least among physics pages I know a numerical cutoff is helpful but I think other criteria and multiple goals are involved. Is the topic extraordinary (anti-gravity)? Controversial (Hubble's constant)? Supported by work from a single person (Black hole electron)? Then we need secondary sources and not just press releases or news reports. Could the topic fit with other similar topics? The bar for a paragraph is much lower than the bar for an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ldm1954 for starting this conversation as I was curious myself about what sources count as SIGCOV for an early stage scientific discovery. I see there's a proposal that a certain number of citations could be a loose metric, which seems reasonable. However, I don't think individual journal articles noting a given discovery/method in the context of other research should count toward notability. Would articles written in journals like Science for a generalist scientist audience count towards this (e.g. Defay 2022 noted by Johnjbarton for the "Ionocaloric refrigeration" section above)? I would think so but would like to see what others think. Nnev66 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal sense is that for scientific advances, one has to note their coverage by independent researchers. Whether this coverage is "in the context of other research" doesn't really make a difference, whether this coverage is substantial probably should. Regarding ionocaloric refrigeration there seems to be a little independent coverage, but whether it's substantial I didn't check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see

    ...matters for discussion raised with today's date, at the Talk page of Potassium peroxymonosulfate, regarding split of the article into two—a short one for the pure title compound, and a longer one for the commercial reagents historically known, e.g., as Oxone® (which contains the pure compound in various formulations). We have done work today to make clear which content elements of some content sections apply to which agent—the pure or the commercial "triple salt"—but as other registered editors have noted (including some contributing here), the article currently continues to confound the pure agent and the triple salt formulation. So, if effort is going to be made to split the article (i) it is easier now than it was earlier, and (ii) it will make further, future edits all the easier to have the article split. (After today, we will reserve editing time for other articles, until this is addressed, so that we better use our limited time in future.) Signed, a former registered editor of many years. 73.45.21.125 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Chemical reaction

    I've made the {{Chemical reaction}} template meant to ease the creation of high-level chemical reaction schemes. Rather than spending 10-30 minutes creating a high-quality svg and uploading it to Commons you can now opt to create a medium-quality version from images of single compounds already on Commons in 1-2 minutes. Great for improving less-viewed corners of the project that use only text to express reaction schemes.

    I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the template and give some feedback on readability, accessibility, usability and practicality. I've constructed some examples at Citrate synthase, Tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase, Strictosidine synthase and Glutamate synthase (NADPH) and you can see them all at the /testcases page. My bias is enzyme chemistry as you can see, but the scheme should work for any reaction (Note that the arrow does not accommodate verbose reaction conditions well, at the moment). I would like to improve the template to reliably make schemes that editors can use easily+quickly, while rendering well on all skins and small screens. I have a few ideas on where to go next, but I think the template is in a good enough spot to ask for opinions here before making more changes. ⇌ Synpath 15:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's impressive, though I'm not sure that your estimate of 1-2 minutes is realistic given the steep learning curve for use of the template! Nevertheless I'll certainly give it a try. I liked the fact that I could easily tweak the size of each individual component using the |upright= parameter, which allowed me to make both citrulline and aspartic acid have the same bond lengths (set aspartic to |upright=0.6), which was otherwise what would be a minor irritation about the example on your template page. I also liked the fact that you are supporting other-language versions of Wikipedia by separating the captions from the drawings. It has been a problem with chemistry reaction schemes that some editors are tempted to put language-specific text into their .svg so that they internationalise less well. Well done indeed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that you had used an image of unspecified stereochemistry for the product at Glutamate synthase (NADPH) so I tweaked it to use the correct L-Glutamate product by swapping the image file. In doing that I noticed a very odd effect. You had an overall width parameter of 50% but if I kept that value the product's image came out looking absolutely tiny in Preview and adding an |upright parameter had no effect. However, when I enlarged the whole width parameter to 60% everything looked OK. Is that something to think about? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look! Part of the reason I'm looking for feedback is that I'm getting blind to how easy/intuitive this thing is to use, and how quickly I can get others up to speed on how the template group is supposed to operate.
    As for Glutamate synthase (NADPH) I gave it a pass of my own and the issue was that the width of the image was being suppressed by the lack of a text caption. An un-intuitive effect I will need to fix. Perhaps with a minimum width CSS rule or by making the caption mandatory.
    The width parameter is a bit of a pain point for me. There are some values that improve the look of a scheme, but it needs to be balanced against how the page is rendered at different screen sizes. I set it to 50% as a conservative width that accommodates the fixed width of the Infobox. I can partially fix this by forcing the scheme to scroll when the sizes don't match up in borderline scenarios, but using scroll bars like this aren't recommended for mobile I think. ⇌ Synpath 19:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Glutamate synthase (NADPH) was an old semi-automated creation from 2007 when rather clunky wording was used for the reaction description. I've noticed that in many other examples. I've tweaked the offending sentences and also removed the now-duplicated Wikilinks which your reaction scheme provides. I think I'll probably have many more questions and comments about the template as I try it out but I'll put them on your talk page rather than clutter up this thread. BTW, I now realise that some editors might like to use your template to create reaction diagrams as .png, which they can do by taking a screen-grab of the rendered output using a snipping tool. Good for people who haven't got access to a chemical drawing program or don't want to learn how to use one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From an editor who is not good at this technology, the template is really impressive. The products are however inferior to ChemDraw in the hands of an experienced chemist. Another thing is the inclusion of links and words within equations.... isn't that discouraged? Small rant: just use ACS or RSC settings. And use professional designations like RCHO for aldehydes, do not omit the H. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these shortcomings are because the template relies on existing drawings, which are often not quite up to our standards, especially regarding ACS settings. The advice not to include links and words in equations is, I think, because when placed on Commons this makes a drawing less useful in other-language edition of WP. This template doesn't have that problem as it would allow for foreign captions/links when used elsewhere because the individual images are themselves "clean". I've just used the template at Acetylserotonin O-methyltransferase#Reactions catalyzed, where the earlier version had lost all its diagrams: I think you'll agree this is much better than what had been there! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The arrow is too thin, small and narrow to be comprehensibly seen, at least from a phone user's perspective; you should make the arrow longer to give a decent space between the |fwd_in= and |fwd_out= contents/outputs, too. The generated diagram should also automatically become scrollable horizontally, the test case in § test1 cuts out to the sides.
    I think you could take inspiration from the § All recognised symbols and codes function of {{chem2}} so that common key terms (e.g.: NADH, coenzyme abbreviations like CoA, the 3 letter abbreviations for amino acids, etc.) are automatically wikiliked to their respective articles (rather than having to spell out the entire wikitext for their link, with an additional pipe-trick for the abbreviated name), or just take inspiration from {{chem2}} in general. I mean, you're pretty much already there, except each substrates/products – and even the plus signs – were in separate templates for some reason. Test cases in §§ test1, test3, and test4 could all have easily been 3 templates long (discounting {{chemical reaction}} itself and other unrelated templates) if each substrates and products are defined separately in their respective (unnamed) parameters in {{chemical reaction/compound}}, and the plus signs automatically added between each compounds; this might mean {{#invoke:Separated entries|function}} would be needed in {{chemical reaction/compound}}, I guess.
    Heck! You could probably make this into just one template – with one parameter for the substrate compounds, 3/4/however-many parameters for the arrow, and one parameter for the product compounds.
    My idea for this is thusly:
    • {{chemical reaction}} will have the following parameters: |subs=,[a] |prod=,[b] |ucap=,[c] |lcap=,[d] |dir=,[e] |fwd_in=,[f] |fwd_out=,[g] |rev_in=,[h] |rev_out=,[i] and other possible parameters for micromanagement
    • |subs= and |prod= will act like the {{chem2}} input – except with compound names instead of chemical formulas – where "Phe" will link to Phenylalanine for example
    • You can add single curly brackets around certain names if necessary (example: {UDP}–Glc so it's interpreted as UDP–Glc instead of UDP–Glc)
    • With the curly brackets function, you can also disable image display (putative example: !i_{ATP} will display text only, skipping the diagram)
    1. ^ "Substrates"; content
    2. ^ "Products"; content
    3. ^ "Upper caption; content
    4. ^ "Lower caption; content
    5. ^ "Direction"; string; suggested values: backward, forward, reversible; default: reversible
    6. ^ "Forward substrate"; string
    7. ^ "Forward product"; string
    8. ^ "Reverse substrate"; string
    9. ^ "Reverse product"; string

    CheckNineEight (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the arrow-size problem. MOS:CHEM specifies to use ACS style. Does it have arrow parameters? Also MOS:SMALL says not to use a text smaller than 85%, whereas Template:Chemical reaction/styles.css has .chemrxn-wrapper {font-size: 75%;}. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Going by the 2006 ACS style guide (p.272,379) and what I could see from the modern one locked behind ACS' paywall, there is no explicit guidance on arrows outside of that it should be legible. At the moment the arrows are not legible when crowded, and limiting them to become no smaller than 55px wide helps with that (see testcases). To my eye this is a reasonable trade off for these pictures of arrows when downscaling. Otherwise I'll need to make some new pictures of arrows or figure out a CSS trick to size them.
    The font size issue is a tradeoff between readability and being able to render the text without overlap. For the smallest screen sizes a font size of 85% often overflows its HTML element making captions unreadable. Part of my justification here in shrinking the text below what MOS:SMALL recommends, is that the heteroatoms in the chemical structures themselves often violate MOS:SMALL at small screen sizes. This is especially true for schemes with several compound images. The larger font can also look inconsistent next to the text size in the images. Of course, that could indicate that this template shouldn't be used in such a scenario. Though, even proper SVG schemes suffer from this, but they have the option to be zoomed in on when clicked. ⇌ Synpath 23:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC) a hefty edit for clarity ⇌ Synpath 01:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for really getting into this! I've made a few changes to how the arrow, |fwd_in= and |fwd_out= are rendered and they shouldn't ever get too small while maintaining space between the labels. If the arrow does still get too small I'll have to spend some time on figuring out a CSS trick or making new arrows.
    Also, the testcases should now show that the reaction schemes never overflow the boundaries of the page or surrounding column of text. I don't think the sizing options are ideal quite yet, but they at least shouldn't need scrolling. I'd like to avoid scrolling, but if the sizing issues become too pathological/unacceptable for small screens a well-signposted scroll bar/overflow indicator will be the best mobile remedy.
    As for the overall design of the template—I wanted to keep the template transparent, simple and flexible. To me that meant foregrounding as much familiar wikitext as possible like [[File:...]] and normal wikilinking. That lets an editor maintain a lot of control over display. For example, the upright parameter still works to scale the images with no extra template parameter. Part of that approach led me to decide that the scheme content should be inputted as a sequence of templates with as few assumptions on order and use as possible. It's also why I would be reluctant to add more structure to the base template through extra parameters. However, that flexibility means the custom text replacement/linking like {{chem2}} can be integrated as a new subtemplate and an editor can opt to use that as their preferred text input choice.
    Unfortunately, automating everything to pure text input does not work when using {{wikidata}} (the underlying template of {{chemrxn/cpd}}) since image retrieval from Wikidata often does not work using a name alone.
    Regarding the "+" joiners—the current implementation does not allow them to be added automatically (that I know of). That would need either a verbose parameter set (e.g. |subst1= |subst2= |subst3= |prod1= |prod2= |prod3=) or Lua code.
    Lastly, integrating the arrow in the base template is something I would like to avoid for only one reason: the current arrow has a really narrow use case. It's only useful for these generic biochemistry-leaning schemes and would absolutely fail to render even a simple chemistry reaction scheme like that at Swern oxidation. One of my next steps is to make a new arrow template that can take numbered lists above and below the arrow (Template:Chemical reaction/orgarrow? Please pick a better name for me. Perhaps the current arrow should be called /biochemarrow). ⇌ Synpath 01:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I meant the arrow itself is too small (the arrowhead blends in/becomes invisible), but it's good now; it's fixed.

    Also, the testcases should now show that the reaction schemes never overflow the boundaries ...

    It seems that the tradeoff here, weirdly enough, is that the captions now cut off.

    ... custom text replacement/linking like {{chem2}} can be integrated as a new subtemplate and an editor can opt to use that ...

    That would be great, actually! I forgot to mention that the + signs are still manually added for the third (just one template) example, just like in {{chem2}}.
    The reason I even came up with the automatic "+" joiner idea was because I noticed that {{chemical reaction/text}} was even needed to add the + signs.
    My suggestion for the current arrow template's name would be "metabolite arrow" (shortcut: "metrxn") or "enzyme arrow" (shortcut: "ezrxn"). CheckNineEight (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the tradeoff here, weirdly enough, is that the captions now cut off. This has been a hard thing for me to avoid. I have found no universal, reliable solution in pure CSS, other than scaling text down to too small sizes or resorting to scrolling. The documentation probably should recommend chemicals with long names be abbreviated (with abbreviations linked and defined in prose) and to check how the template is displayed at other screen sizes by resizing the browser window. That may be adequate.
    Also, I tend to agree that {{chemrxn/arw|+}} is a bit verbose just to add a plus sign, but I'm not convinced it negatively impacts usability too much. Maybe, with time, that will become clearer. ⇌ Synpath 01:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no shame in making it scrollable. I mean, it's always enabled on default wikitables that are wide, as well as in default <chemical> and <math> formulae, e.g.:

    CheckNineEight (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scrolling overflow might be something that I just don't like and I'll get over it when I see enough examples with sketchy presentation. There are issues with hiding content behind a scroll, but hiding text with no way of recovering it aside from the HTML is worse. ⇌ Synpath 04:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Purpose of the template

    Can someone please remind me/us about what problem this template solves? I mean, the technical aspects of the coding impresses me, but why do we need a "reaction template"? What is difficult or broken about our usual rather flexible approaches to introduce drawings? Is this an effort to standardize format or to distinguish chemical reactions" from other chem graphics? --Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smokefoot Having now taken a look at all the articles in {{One carbon transferases}}, I have been able to rather quickly add enzyme reaction diagrams to those which lacked them or had poor representations. In its latest version, the template can access individual chemical structures from Wikidata, so when I notice that some component is missing I can draw just that chemical, upload it to Commons and make the link in Wikidata. Now anyone can use my drawing in any other chemical reaction. This will give a flexible and consistent approach to articles on enzyme mechanisms. It may in the long term also be useful for simple A -> B chemical reactions. See Arginine:glycine amidinotransferase and N-acetylornithine carbamoyltransferase for examples and compare them to what we previously had. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally sinking in, thank you. So, we need an inventory of components for such schemes. Perhaps a wishlist?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just ask me via my talk page. There are very many more compounds in Wikidata than have articles in en:WP. Wikidata also has images (from Commons, of course) for many things that don't exist here as articles, some of which are not ACS-standard. Creating .svg files for known compounds that exist in ChemSpider or PubChem is something that can be done easily once you know the tricks. The main technical issue is that chemical drawing programs can't import and convert .svg back into the proprietary vector graphics files that MDL Information Systems invented originally (.skc files), which makes the drawing of whole new reaction schemes in a chemical drawing program much more tedious than using the new template, whose modularity is its strongest feature. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Amino acid

    Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Content C5H10N2O3

    This set of information was added to the chemical formula page C5H10N2O3. In a matter of context, the content below does relate to the chemical formula. Should this information not be included in the article even if it has pertinence? If not, where should all of this information go so I can input it there?

    Daniel6201 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course not, because it is too general. I also downgraded the second-level header to a collapsible to improve readability of this discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate Daniel6201 raising the issue here after I objected to their adding it to that article. The central discussion here would apply broadly to all molecular-formula chem-setindex pages. I stand by my objection, that while it does relate to the molecular formula, it's too much detail on something that is purely mechanically derived from it. And as written it's also factually incorrect in two ways. Consider that C4H6 would calculate IHD=2, but three of the entries on that page do not have a total of two "double-bonds and rings". IHD is a useful teaching tool for understanding certain types of structures and a useful analytical tool for predicting structures or narrowing down possibilities of an unknown substance, but it's got too many subtlties to be generally spread to all formulas and remain both correct and useful to an audience that would understand it. DMacks (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DMacks on this. Degree of unsaturation is a handy tool but describing it in the level of detail necessary to be accurate is inappropriate for what amounts to a disambiguation page, let alone an entire class of pages. Ring (chemistry) is already a whole page about how "ring" can be nebulously defined. It's obvious to people aware of chemistry how many rings are in e.g. norbornane or propellanes, but that's not something I care to explain on every CxHy. Fishsicles (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback! I learned a lot and I appreciate you guys taking the time to respond to my inquiry! Daniel6201 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Splits

    Gold and Iron might need to be split due to prose size. ReyHahn (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also lead.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Iron although long seems to hold together well as an article. One possibility is to split off biochemistry of iron. A similar set of articles could be created (or maybe exist) on a few other common, bioactive metals: biochemistry of cobalt, biochemistry of copper, biochemistry of zinc. About gold, maybe start the slim-down by removing (or moving) 90% of the "eye candy".--Smokefoot (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that iron in biology is already a page, and appears to replicate a lot of the biology section on the main iron page. Fishsicles (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal would likely be of interest to WT:Elements Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Improve British Crystallographic Association

    I’m a Fellow and paying member of the British Crystallographic Association. I reckon the current article is looking a bit thin, soI will try to put together a draft to give it a proper spruce up. I am keen to get this improved and due to declared COI I am working on a separate draft that I hope to request to merge with the live page at a later stage. Posting here in case someone in this community is interested in helping me particularly with the wiki nuances since I am a inexperienced editor although a subject expert in Protein crystallography. Thanks. David Aragao (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping me when you have a draft, I have no COI. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you @Ldm1954. Will do 👍 David Aragao (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

    For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

    There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Filter dryer#Request rename title from "filter dryer" to "filter drier"

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Filter dryer#Request rename title from "filter dryer" to "filter drier" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing articles: laureth, steareth

    FYI
     – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

    Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Missing articles: laureth, steareth  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Project Osprey:. The terms laureth and steareth are mentioned in Fatty alcohol#Applications. Our resident ethoxylator-in-chief will hopefully polish that snippet and maybe provide a citation.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You overestimate me. Everything I know about it is second or third hand, I've never worked with it directly. Project Osprey (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Petrochemical Article

    Hello,

    Copying the following from the petrochemical talk page. Would appreciate feedback from here as well.

    Kindly requesting some feedback on recent edits on this page from the group, if possible.

    Two things I think could help on clarity:

    1. Adding a more definite "family tree" structure to show origin of chemicals. For instance, please see the sequence below.

    Ethylene->acetic acid-> vinyl acetate -> polyvinyl acetate

    I think adding tree structures can make this origin more clear.

    2. Showing a limited set of final products from the actual chemicals. Appending to the item above, we would have this:

    Ethylene->acetic acid-> vinyl acetate -> polyvinyl acetate-> "Elmer's Glue:"

    I think the appeal to the latter item is relatability. The risk of course, is clutter. So I think it will be an active source of editing.

    Appreciate the team's input. Thanks. Dgputt (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Dgputt (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For convenience: the article in question is Petrochemical and the discussion (which has no replies since it was just started 30 minutes ago) is Talk:Petrochemical#Tree branching and more exhaustive list. -- Reconrabbit 16:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Family trees" aren't really accurate for most chemicals of interest. There are multiple routes to most chemicals, often multiple in use at the same time depending on the scale of the plant and price of local materials. For your given example, producing acetic acid from ethylene (Wacker process and a subsequent oxidation step, presumably?) is not generally competitive with its production from methanol (Monsanto process) - and even then if you wanted to be accurate, the Wacker route is ethylene -> acetaldehyde -> acetic acid. Fishsicles (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Aroma compound

    We normally dont notify the group about simple splits and moves, but Aroma compound has a lot of scope, so I am bringing it to your attention. That article is poised for restructuring as discussed at Talk:Aroma compound#Split proposal. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantum Chemistry

    Hi all.

    I have just proposed my idea for a lead image for the quantum chemistry article. I've posted about it on article's talk page. Any thoughts would be appreciated, just wanted to make sure it doesn’t get overlooked.

    Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Structural chemistry article at Wikiproject AI Cleanup

    Structural chemistry has been listed for the AI Cleanup project, in which I am active. The article was created in 2017 (from a deleted redirect), and was then seldom edited until late 2023, at which time it was tremendously expanded. It has many hallmarks of lazily AI-generated content, such as sweeping yet vague statements, meandering text that can't decide what is the main point and what is ancillary, and tiny subsections (some only a sentence long). I bring it up here because the article is worth keeping and does not contain anything that immediately strikes me as wrong, but I think others besides me might want some say in how it should be fixed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete I suggest WP:TNT. Update: WP:TNT would be ok, but I understand the outright delete and restart has the advantage of starting a new history. The article is fundamentally wrong since it does not summarize any sources directly on the article topic "Structural chemistry". The kinds of topics that should be covered could be found in eg
    • Batsanov, S. S., & Batsanov, A. S. (2012). Introduction to structural chemistry. Springer Science & Business Media.
    The sources I checked in the current article only "verify" the word they are attached to, not anything related to the article topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete almost Kinda agree with TNT. The article may have suffered for a lack of ownership. I mean, structural chemistry could be described as a set of techniques (which it is not, they are tools). Or it could be a description of structural motifs, which would be difficult to summarize. Another idea: paraphrase the organization of Wells' Structural Chem or the previously cited book. Or maybe redirect the title to X-ray crystallography. Maybe write a few sentences and add some book refs. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC) The main problem with trying to delete is that such an action attracts all sorts of Wiki lawyers, beard-strokers, etc, all of whom are ignorant of the field (but will remind "hey, I took chemistry"). In other words, if we try to delete this junker, the ChemProject loses control. So just compress the heck out of it. Gigapascals. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I started the revision. Suggestions and contributions welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Expansion request: Sujit Datta article

    I have posted comprehensive expansion suggestions with full sourcing on Talk:Sujit Datta. The article is currently a stub missing significant biographical information for a Full Professor at Caltech who also serves as Chief Editor of Reviews of Modern Physics.

    The suggestions include:

    • Complete education and career history with institutional sources
    • Detailed research contributions in nanoscience, biophysics, fluid dynamics, and soft mechanics with peer-reviewed publication citations
    • Major awards that are missing with official award citations
    • Citations for existing awards that currently lack sources

    All content is drafted in Wikipedia style with reliable secondary sources (university announcements, professional society pages, peer-reviewed publications). The work is essentially done—it just needs review and implementation by an editor familiar with scientific biographies.

    Would appreciate if anyone could review and help expand this article. Thanks! ~2026-17002-0 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: strenuously avoid WP:PEACOCK. Great scientist (or artists, authors, or ...) do not require compliments and do not welcome puffery. A plain record of achievement speaks for itself. Fawning editors attract attention, often negating of their objectives.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Chromite battery?

    If you know anything about old wet-cell batteries, please see Talk:History of the battery#Chromite?. RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    More categorisation: Category:Acyl compounds and its members

    "Acyl compound" as a category could theoretically include any compound with a carbonyl, or even other oxyacid derivatives such as sulfonyl. The category as it stands instead includes categories of compounds grouped by (carboxylic) acyl groups, which isn't something I'm immediately opposed to, but I think it's better framed as a category of categories, akin to e.g. Category:Chemical compounds by element, to organise those acyl groups which have grown to category size. (I suspect a similar scheme might help with e.g. Category:Alkyl compounds? I'm drawn more and more toward codifying chemistry categories...)

    I've also noticed questionable categorisation of its members. Category:Acetyl compounds and Category:Formyl compounds both implied Category:Ketones, which is obviously incorrect (especially formyl!). I'm more curious as to a rationale for Category:Acetyl compounds implying Category:Methyl compounds. Certainly an acetyl group contains −CH3 adjacent to a different group, so in the loosest sense it could be called a "methyl compound", but I would usually only call a compound such if methyl were somehow separated from the main carbon chain (mainly by attachment to heteroatoms, or methyl substituents on cyclic backbones). I could understand calling methyl ethyl ketone a methyl compound, though I'd disagree with it, but I'd draw a much firmer line for acetaldehyde.

    Any other thoughts? Fishsicles (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes a special sort of person to do consistently good work with categories. This is the stupidest mistake I've ever made, thankfully reverted by User:JWBE when they saw it half a year later. (I'd spent several days expanding Tosylamide/formaldehyde resin, followed by correctly categorizing another arylsulfonamide. Not that that's an excuse.) I have occasionally fixed errors from other editors, rather than introducing new ones. E.g. moving Category:Deaths from chloroform out of Category:Chloroformates (which still cracks me up, I guess it's an easy mistake for a non-chemistry editor to make).
    That's a long-winded lead-in to saying your suggestions make sense to me. It might be worth also running them past JWBE. Lastly, it's probably a good idea to add short explanations to category pages to reduce the chance of someone messing them up later. (I didn't bother adding a note to Category:Chloroformates, but I did create Category:Chloroform, which should hopefully supplant it for the shelving of our chloroform-related pages.) Preimage (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably whatever we do here to Category:Acyl_compounds should sync with commons:Category:Acyl_compounds. The proposal doesn't make sense to me. "The category as it stands instead includes categories of compounds grouped by (carboxylic) acyl groups, which isn't something I'm immediately opposed to, but I think it's better framed as a category of categories". Isn't that what it is now? DMacks (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We use a 3-level categorization for amides: Category:Amides > Category:Carboxamides > Category:Acetamides. If I've read it correctly, the proposal is to switch to an analogous hierarchy for acyl compounds: Category:Acyl compounds > Category:Carboxacyl compounds > Category:Acetyl compounds. Which matches the corresponding Gold Book definitions: amides, acyl groups. I admit it's clunky from an organic chemistry perspective. We shouldn't be slaves to nomenclature, and the term carboxacyl is used so rarely it's not even in Google Ngrams; it has zero Google Scholar hits, three Google Books hits, and 12 Google web hits (mostly patents). So yeah, it seemed to me that it would be an improvement in consistency ... but the more I look into it, the more I seem to be arguing myself out of the position that it's a good idea. Preimage (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:CHEM