Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
| Article alerts |
|---|
|
Did you know
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
A-Class review
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Good article reassessments
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving STEM and business-related articles and we want to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for science, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Who is "we"? Is there some evidence that the Chem Project has a problem with stubs and staleness?--Smokefoot (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Pi-interaction
editThere's a rather dusty article at Pi-interaction that could do with a merge or redirect; some expert eyes would be helpful at Talk:Pi-interaction#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have edited this supramolecular theme often. We could do the proposed merge, but here are some predicaments:
- Anion–π interactions is kind of a thing. Reviews exist on the topic. I would prefer to move that bit to a pre-existing article, but I dont know what that would be. If necessary, we spin out this narrow topic to stand on its own.
- Pi-stacking to me means graphite, charge transfer complexes. These interactions are relatively strong. Instead, the article is dominated by discussion of weak arene-arene interactions, with a discussion of theoretical approaches. I propose that this part be moved to arene.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from dewiki and wanted to give you a headsup on this article which was posted in the same form to enwiki, dewiki, and frwiki. The article is a crude mixture of the compound allyl potassium and the general concept of allylic potassium complexes and - more problematically, there are some things off with the cited sources, e.g., I the stuff with the pyridine is not in the respective source and I couldn't find a source for this reaction. Instead, I found one with Diallylcalcium: 10.1002/anie.201003704. No idea what your procedures are for such cases just wanted to recommend you take a look because I cleaned out the German article. Have a nice weekend, Anagkai (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Does someone have access to the Zhang et al paper cited by this article? The wiki article calls it a catalyst, but even from the supplementary materials, that doesn't sit right with me: it seems to be discussing it as an intermediate when using tBuOK as the catalyst, with the allylpotassium complex only being separately synthesised to demonstrate the same spectrum is present in the reaction using tBuOK. If there's no evidence that the compound is being separately prepared to be used as a catalyst, it should probably be referred to as an intermediate. Fishsicles (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I checked: you are probably correct. Looks like its the butoxide base that is catalyst.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Help with Huang Jinling
editDoes anyone know of him and/or his work? He may pass WP:NPROF as a past President of a university, but I cannot check the sources for WP:NPP. Note: I have also posted to WT:WikiProject China for the language issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- N.B., his area from the page is, to quote: Huang Jinling has dedicated his career to the examination of structural and materials chemistry pertaining to transition metal complexes and atomic clusters, attaining significant results. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well our other Wikipedia pages on chemicals do not mention this person. Perhaps all writings are in Chinese, so would not be found by our authors. There is however a botanist with that same name referenced several times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- According to the Chinese Wikipedia page, he is noted in the 1991 work 二十世纪中国名人辞典 (Dictionary of 20th Century Chinese Biography) and the 1992 work 中华当代文化名人大辞典 (Dictionary of Contemporary Chinese Cultural Celebrities), though I have no way of verifying either. -- Reconrabbit 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well our other Wikipedia pages on chemicals do not mention this person. Perhaps all writings are in Chinese, so would not be found by our authors. There is however a botanist with that same name referenced several times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a structure, and if yes, which type of structure would be appropriate? Leyo 09:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- The existing refs do cite a crystallography paper... but that describes two compounds, both of which have different formulas to the one given in our article. Project Osprey (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Structure is probably in this reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/ic101904j -- though we may have the wrong formula in our article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306379669 is also of interest, but different lead:acetate ratio compounds were measured. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- In my head I want it to be isostructural to Basic beryllium acetate and Basic zinc acetate --Project Osprey (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- The structures from doi:10.1021/ic101904j are in the CSD at this URL I'm not sure that any of the three mentioned are actually the "basic lead acetate" with CAS No. 1335-32-6. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- ... our article on Lead(II) acetate has the more common lead acetate hydrates, which is also what I think the researchgate publication was concerned with. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those structures don't look right at all... what on earth is happening in OLAZIL? The carbon atoms are touching one another. Project Osprey (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- According to its summary, the 1965 article doi:10.1016/0022-1902(65)80153-1 has the X-ray structure of the material our article refers to. Unfortunately, I don't have full access (it is not included in the Wikipedia library's content at Science Direct) but this does mean it should be in the CSD somewhere but I can't find it using that DOI as the search term. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- It is gratifying to see basic acetates accepted as a common motif. It wasn't always that way here. Metal acetates tend to lose Ac2O when M is high valent or when the simple acetate is heated. Basic acetates come in various formulas, now made famous as secondary building units in Metal–organic frameworks. Cr3O and Fe3O are the cores of the basic chromium and iron acetates (ferric triacetate does not exist apparently). The structure determinations by Mauck et al. are complicated by disorder and twinning (beyond me), which are manifested in the CSD files. The atom coordinates may require editing to see the structure properly. Citing Mauck et al. is this overview: Krivovichev, Sergey V.; Mentré, Olivier; Siidra, Oleg I.; Colmont, Marie; Filatov, Stanislav K. (2013). "Anion-Centered Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds". Chemical Reviews. 113 (8): 6459–6535. doi:10.1021/cr3004696. PMID 23621387.. Some excerpts from that review: "3.2. OPb4 Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds. 3.2.1. 0D Units. ...Isolated (OPb4) tetrahedra ... found in ... [Pb4O]Pb2(BO3)3Cl and Pb4O(PO4)2 .... Mauck et al.reported on the crystal structures of Pb3O2(CH3COO)2·0.5H2O and Pb2O(HCOO)2." For whatever reason (prob Pb2+'s size), it seems that basic lead acetate does not want to crystallize like the Zn4O(OAc)6 species.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the replies. Seems to be a tricky case … --Leyo 20:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- It is gratifying to see basic acetates accepted as a common motif. It wasn't always that way here. Metal acetates tend to lose Ac2O when M is high valent or when the simple acetate is heated. Basic acetates come in various formulas, now made famous as secondary building units in Metal–organic frameworks. Cr3O and Fe3O are the cores of the basic chromium and iron acetates (ferric triacetate does not exist apparently). The structure determinations by Mauck et al. are complicated by disorder and twinning (beyond me), which are manifested in the CSD files. The atom coordinates may require editing to see the structure properly. Citing Mauck et al. is this overview: Krivovichev, Sergey V.; Mentré, Olivier; Siidra, Oleg I.; Colmont, Marie; Filatov, Stanislav K. (2013). "Anion-Centered Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds". Chemical Reviews. 113 (8): 6459–6535. doi:10.1021/cr3004696. PMID 23621387.. Some excerpts from that review: "3.2. OPb4 Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds. 3.2.1. 0D Units. ...Isolated (OPb4) tetrahedra ... found in ... [Pb4O]Pb2(BO3)3Cl and Pb4O(PO4)2 .... Mauck et al.reported on the crystal structures of Pb3O2(CH3COO)2·0.5H2O and Pb2O(HCOO)2." For whatever reason (prob Pb2+'s size), it seems that basic lead acetate does not want to crystallize like the Zn4O(OAc)6 species.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- According to its summary, the 1965 article doi:10.1016/0022-1902(65)80153-1 has the X-ray structure of the material our article refers to. Unfortunately, I don't have full access (it is not included in the Wikipedia library's content at Science Direct) but this does mean it should be in the CSD somewhere but I can't find it using that DOI as the search term. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Steel 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) 15:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Inorganic Syntheses
editThe series called Inorganic Syntheses (IS) is usually treated in the research literature as a journal. There are about 36 volumes, each with about 40-60 preps. When IS is cited in the research literature, the editor of the volume is not mentioned. The isbn is not mentioned. The checkers (people who test the prep) are not mentioned, just like the checkers for Organic Syntheses are not mentioned. I have added a lot of these refs, but the formatting machine and well-intentioned editors often convert my work from "cite journal" to "cite book". It's not a big deal, but at least you all know what is going on. (COI disclosure: I edited one volume of IS). --Smokefoot (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- In that case citation bot should be changed to convert this to cite journal, not cite book. User:Headbomb will probably need to know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Inorganic Syntheses is a book series, so we cite it as a book. This is no different than citing say, SPIE Proceedings. To save space, one can cite doi:10.1117/12.3056045 as a 'journal', i.e.
- Rusciano, Giulia; Capaccio, Angela; Catalano, Benedetta Francine; Sasso, Antonio (2025). "Bimetallic porous nanopatterns for SERS‑based sensing platforms". Proceedings of the SPIE. 13528: 135280F. doi:10.1117/12.3056045.
- though you really should cite as a book proper
- Rusciano, Giulia; Capaccio, Angela; Catalano, Benedetta Francine; Sasso, Antonio (2025). "Bimetallic porous nanopatterns for SERS‑based sensing platforms". In Rendina, Ivo; Petti, Lucia; Sagnelli, Domenico; Nenna, Giuseppe (eds.). Smart Materials for Opto-Electronic Applications 2025. Proceedings of the SPIE. Vol. 13528. p. 135280F. doi:10.1117/12.3056045. ISBN 978-1-5106-8852-0.
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Inorganic Syntheses is a book series, so we cite it as a book. This is no different than citing say, SPIE Proceedings. To save space, one can cite doi:10.1117/12.3056045 as a 'journal', i.e.
Template:Format ion formula
editHey chemistry folks, I came across TM:Format ion formula at Pacemaker current today. I find it odd that it seems to insert a space before the ion charge (superscript +). Is this supposed to work this way? I have never seen a space between element and charge before. I would ping the template creator, but it seems they've been vanished... Toadspike [Talk] 13:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant HCN channel, not pacemaker current. And it seems this template is used all of three times [1]. I may just replace all uses and nominate for deletion instead of bothering you guys about it. Toadspike [Talk] 13:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Toadspike Yes, that template seems to be unnecessary and as Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Format ion formula reveals is hardly used. For simple ions, using a superscript + would be fine, or {{chem2}} is our current standard for more complex cases. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Regular icosahedron
editHi. I would like for someone to help me improve the part of the polyhedron's application
The regular icosahedron is the special case of a polyhedron obtained by attaching two pentagonal pyramids to the antiprisms while preserving the dihedral group symmetry. This polyhedron, known as bicapped pentagonal antiprism, has the same orbital hybridization's scheme sp3d3, like other polyhedra with the same symmetry.
I am somehow stuck: my uneducated guess is the regular icosahedron has sp3d5f3, the same as the bicapped pentagonal antiprism D5h. Is that correct? I provide the source here [2] (for PDF: [3]). Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- A regular icosahedron is a bicapped pentagonal antiprism: anything true of the general case will hold for the more specific regular case. That said, the f orbitals are generally too close to the nucleus to hybridise, so I'm not sure something like this would occur physically - linked paper appears to be a mathematical exercise, which I can't complain about but I question if it belongs in an applications section. Fishsicles (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Its not just f-orbitals. "We" don't use hybridization very much anymore. It is convenient descriptor in organic chemistry, but that is about it. I dont think that you'll find it in textbooks published in recent decades.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you. I'll do some revision. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposed renaming of category Category:Anabolic–androgenic steroids to Category:Androgens
editI proposed renaming of Category:Anabolic–androgenic steroids to Category:Androgens. See discussion here: Categories for discussion, 2025 July 18, renaming of category "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids" to Category:Androgens. HertzDonuts (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Will someone please take a look at this draft and see if they agree with me? I moved it from article space to draft space because the description of his contribution to theory, Discovery of natural laws of chemical clusters doesn't seem right. I first wondered when I read that the discovery of the atomic number Z let scientists put elements into rows and columns. The atomic number clarified the discovery of the rows and columns that Mendeleev had made based on the atomic weight, but you all knew that. Then it says that the discovery of the skeletal number K in 2015 made it possible to arrange compounds and elements into groups. I had just retired in 2015 and hadn't mostly been doing chemistry, but I think I would have known about any major discoveries in chemistry. The only number called a skeletal number in chemistry that I have found is the number of carbon atoms in a chain, which has nothing to do with water.
Can someone put a positive spin on this draft, or is this an effort to confuse non-scientists by misusing scientific terminology? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly support your draftification. With an h-factor of 10, 290 total citations and no major awards there is zero evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF. If in the future the community accepts his ideas his citations will shoot up and he can be revisited. I am 100% certain the current page would die a quick death at AfD.
- N.B., for fun I checked source [7] which is standard ab-initio. I could not find "skeletal" anywhere in it. I also don't see any RS for the claims of his discoveries. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that WP:NPROF is unlikely to be met. His books are available through Amazon but are published by Lambert Academic, which our article calls a predatory vanity publisher. One of the citations in the biography (based on an interview) claims that
over 10 million copies of his books sold internationally
but that he has received nothing: both claims seem very dubious to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC) - Thirding a lack of WP:NPROF. Reading an available paper of his, doi:10.5539/ijc.v8n4p78, shows nothing particularly special about "skeletal numbers" - which just count the CO:M ratio of a homoleptic carbonyl complex. Certainly nothing comparable to periodisation. That he treats quadruply bonded dicarbon as a "simple example" also... does not fill me with confidence. Fishsicles (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- This case looks open-and-shut but is thought provoking in some ways Looks like he's (self)publishing low level maths on stuff (clusters) that was dealt with many decades ago. That style is what people do when they are very ambitious and very deprived (read: Namibia). Weepiness is no route to notability. However, Wikichem probably has no profiles of any black chemist practicing in Africa. So, maybe we give some thought to Chemistry in Africa or Science in Africa. Sounds awkward, I know. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. We are all in agreement that the article does not belong in article space, although we have different concerns. My concern was that his stated advance sounded like pseudo-science. My reading of the paper that was linked to reinforces that assessment. I don't know what he is saying in the paper. My degree in chemistry was 56 years ago, but I don't think that the field has changed so much that I wouldn't understand the basics of a paper, unless I recognized that it was a highly specialized area that I know I don't know, and this is not that. I have read pseudo-scientific physics papers and biology (usually anti-evolution) papers, but I think that this is the first such paper that I have read on chemistry.
- I wasn't concerned about whether he satisfied academic notability, because I was concerned about the technical gibberish.
- If the article goes into article space again, it should go directly to AFD. An article should only be sent back to draft space once; any subsequent concerns should go to AFD. We shall see what happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- There are quite a few practicing African chemists here already, looking through the categories. Oluwole Babafemi Familoni and Marian Asantewah Nkansah being among them. While not shining examples of Wikipedia biographies they are in better condition than this draft. -- Reconrabbit 14:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Oxycations and editor Johnjbarton
editI noticed that this article was nominated for deletion by the named editor a short time ago. From that discussion it is clear no one else really supported his view (which he articulated vehemently) and that the concept and specific instances were verifiable. I therefore decided it ought to be restored, and that I would start an outline, taking the lead from Oxyanion and giving an order list of examples, linked to the article we already have on that ion if possible (this was how it once was).
The article now, indeed, is a useless stub, but it is so only because of Johnjbarton's continued deletions of matter he doesn't consider to meet his idea of proper sourcing; the removal of the list of wikilinks in his last edit may have been by mistake, but it would be very careless not to notice. Certainly here there is no need here to have sources on everything immediately, a demand that clearly frustrated the creation of a useful article on a topic we should have, thus harming Wikipedia. There is no doubt of the existence of sources, though I only kept those already there; I deliberately did not add any more at this time. From now until further notice, any deletion of material by Johnjbarton from the article will be reverted without further explanation; anyone else is free to discuss and edit.
It is not as if Oxyanion is perfect, either, the lead states "Oxyanions are formed by a large majority of the chemical elements." sourced to Greenwood&Earnshaw with no page given, which I wouldn't consider well-sourced. This was followed by a plainly wrong statement I just removed. Finally I should mention, with regard to the title, that oxocation, oxycations, and oxocations (which I searched first) should certainly redirect to it, as the corresponding terms do for Oxyanion. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a participant who ultimately !voted Keep, I think this is an egregious misreading of @Johnjbarton's contributions to the article / deletion discussion. It also reads dangerously close to a personal attack, stapled to an assertion that you'll disregard WP policy on edit warring. I would recommend against doing this if you want to maintain edit access. WP:BRD describes what you should do instead: have a
considerate and patient
discussion with John on the article talk page. - I would also advise against adding unsourced information. In my view, it should be possible to improve the article using four of the sources previously identified by @Cyclopia: Porterfield (1993), Deeth (1991), Selbin (1964), and Selbin (1966). Preimage (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have run into John several times already since I started editing in this area, and while I would, certainly, prefer that discussion be resolved that way, have found him impossible to have a productive discussion with. Others may have had different experiences, but probably I should not be judged that harshly when I have already tried. I agree that those sources are probably appropriate, but I can't realistically access most sources not available free online, and don't think I should try to add citations to sources I haven't seen. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:D13A (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Certainly here there is no need here to have sources on everything immediately, a demand that clearly frustrated the creation of a useful article on a topic we should have
- As another keep !voter, nope: there is a need for material to be sourced when it is inserted. We give some leeway sometimes, but if something isn't sourced usually it does not belong here. WP:V is one of our core policies. Removing unsourced stuff is good, and for the love of what's holy do not add unsourced material. cyclopiaspeak! 14:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)- I was a bit too combative in my wording, I admit, because I was still thinking of Johnjbarton and not others that might reply, which I didn't expect to get immediately. I do try to avoid adding unsourced material (at least by my definition) and the word 'deliberately' may have given the wrong impression. But as you acknowledge there is some leeway, a page does not have to be in a perfectly sourced state all the time (that's why we have [citation needed] and similar), and I think this is one such exception since something is better than nothing. I didn't add a whole lot of unsourced material, I meant only to make the page presentable, so that it would look better than not having it - which, as you voted Keep, I assume you do not desire. I did not think that this (the version that had been in place since the AfD) gave a good impression, and the state of sourcing is not the main reason; that's not the first thing someone is going to see; the version I put in its place is surely an improvement in that regard. I can find sources for specific ions that don't have any yet, but in general I hoped that others such as you would expand it, once I got it started and raised the issue, or at the least would not allow it to return to such a state.
- I am focused right now on completing the isotopes update, which is tedious even without dealing with sourcing, and was not anticipating devoting a lot of time to this - and as your time is not infinite either, I think I can stop here, having made the main points.
- I also must thank the person that immediately added the redirects! 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:D13A (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxycation was no consensus to delete. I don't understand what the issue is now. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oxycation is terminology used for some inorganic compounds, often by non-inorganic chemists. It is harmless but we might as well include it. Only few binary molecular oxycations are used much (NO+ and NO2+ come to mind as biggies). Most so-called oxycations have ligands glommed all over the metal (like titanyl, vanadyl), hence the terminology is almost mirthful or misleading in some ways. Also notable are the non-binary oxycations like MeCO+ (acylium) and ClCO+ invoked in Friedel-Crafts. Some astrochemists might have identified some binary oxycations in the interstellar medium. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits are strongly objectionable. First, they completely change the focus of the article, which, for an article you knew was under discussion, should not have been done without notification first. And they appear to be promoting your personal view on what 'oxycations' are over anything sourced - on the respective pages we have sources explicitly acknowledging the existence of vanadyl, uranyl and others. Of course, they are not 'naked' in solids or solutions, nor would you expect them to be (like polyvalent metal cations). But they are sufficiently stable apart from other ligands to be considered discrete ions (like the same metal ions), and are acknowledged as such by many sources; in the AfD discussion there was no dispute on the essential nature of the subject, nor did any of the provided sources do so, nor would one expect any source to do so, because the very word contains 'ion' and should not be applied to radicals having no existence as ions. I was careful, in compiling my list, to include only (to the best of my imperfect knowledge) those for which there was sufficient reason to believe could exist as ions in solids or solutions (condensed phases), and not e.g. chromyl.
- Yes, it is reasonable to mention that oxycation-like terminology is used for compounds that are not sensibly considered ionic, or are very little so. It is also reasonable to mention salts of oxycations (and that they may not be entirely ionic), as is already done on pages for individual ions. But not as a replacement for the main topic! The definition of oxycation, which I did not make up, requires only oxo ligands, so ions/radicals containing halogen and organic ones like acyl don't belong either. A possible exception is those where the bond to the oxo ligand is clearly and significantly more firm that that to any other ligand (the latter of which can be replaced), as can be found in some of the sources; note that acylium ions don't work that way.
- Finally, your edits contained numerous visible formatting errors, and at least one outright blunder (AcO2+ instead of UO2+ as the source clearly reads), and it should not be the responsibility of others to take the time to fix these. I'll have to fix some of these, and if you will not discuss it, start from scratch by reverting all your edits, then adding the new information that is worth something - making sure, as I do, NOT to break formatting or references. 2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 Please review Wikipedia:Civility. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Discuss content, not editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was discussing content, and find your jumping in here to attack me dubious. Why does it always have to be personal when you get involved? 2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- These aspects of your post are not about content and create an uncivil atmosphere:
- "Your edits are strongly objectionable."
- "...they appear to be promoting your personal view..."
- "Finally, your edits contained numerous visible formatting errors,..."
- Regarding:
I was discussing content, and find your jumping in here to attack me dubious. Why does it always have to be personal when you get involved?
You posted my name in the title of this topic, so I don't think I am jumping in. I am getting personal to join the other editors in encouraging you to please take a different approach. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)- By the standard you apply to me, then, you are being uncivil. And surely if anything possible incivility in an honest attempt to discuss the improvement of an article is less culpable than the same done only to hurt. (And I don't think any of those are reasonably seen as personal attacks on Smokefoot.) 2601:441:8500:B870:E0BA:CF17:F8D7:7D9C (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- These aspects of your post are not about content and create an uncivil atmosphere:
- I was discussing content, and find your jumping in here to attack me dubious. Why does it always have to be personal when you get involved? 2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @2601:441:8500:B870:C0AC:6A95:A4FD:3786 Please review Wikipedia:Civility. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Discuss content, not editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oxycation is terminology used for some inorganic compounds, often by non-inorganic chemists. It is harmless but we might as well include it. Only few binary molecular oxycations are used much (NO+ and NO2+ come to mind as biggies). Most so-called oxycations have ligands glommed all over the metal (like titanyl, vanadyl), hence the terminology is almost mirthful or misleading in some ways. Also notable are the non-binary oxycations like MeCO+ (acylium) and ClCO+ invoked in Friedel-Crafts. Some astrochemists might have identified some binary oxycations in the interstellar medium. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Chemistry tag for AfD
editI have (fingers and toes crossed that I did it right) added "Chemistry" as an AfD category when creating one. Entries should appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Chemistry if this option is used. Note that this is different from the AfD sorting page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Should synthesis methods be given for psychoactive / controlled compounds?
editOther parts of the article eg;
Routes of administration, Dosage, Tolerance
are all unsourced and im unsure of the notability of the information , it seems more an advice page rather than what I might expect in an encyclopaedia?
apologies if this report was in error LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTHOW Potentially relevant but again I may be in error
- LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think bare outline of a synthesis given in Βk-2C-B is fine. Please add sources. Feel free to delete any unsourced sections for any reason. For examples any of the sections "Structure-activity relationships" "Pharmacokinetics", "Effects" "Tolerance" could be removed. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does US law restrict the publication of this kind of information? Our policy for inclusion is not "notability" but WP:Verify or WP:Due. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd need to re-check the appropriate legislation, but as far as I'm aware, there are not legal restrictions on publication of synthesis routes (it'd make patenting anything in pharmaceuticals a bit of a nightmare, which is contrary to most priorities of US legislation). To my knowledge most of the regulatory and enforcement activity focuses on tracing actual production of precursors. To be certain, I'll check over the laws later today - I have about 30 hours of airplane time to kill. Fishsicles (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Featured article review for Shale oil extraction
editI have nominated Shale oil extraction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Buggy (?) Reactionbox template creating categories
editThe template {{Reactionbox}} is creating a Category from the entry in the "Type". I came across this first for ZACA reaction, but it is also in Stille reaction and probably others. I don't think we should have editors/templates creating semi-random categories like this; I found it indirectly from Category:Transition metal catalyzed organometallic functionalizations that was created by ZACA. Template editing is not my expertise, over to someone else... Ldm1954 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- The template should not do this, per WP:TEMPLATECAT. The process to fix it is to manually apply the relevant category to each affected article, then remove the categorization code from the template. I'll be happy to do the second part if you ping me when the first part is done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- IMHO, reaction boxes are not very useful and almost pointless. Focusing on just one aspect: the true origins of many reactions are often obscure, and assigning discovery reinforces the prominence of "named reactions". The practice, which is prevalent in organic chemistry, also puts much emphasis on attribution to individuals. Inorganic and materials chemists rarely name our reactions. Also the "reaction type" is not useful. Reductive amination is described as "coupling reaction". Who is the authority that classifies reactions? My guess is that reaction boxes originated with the success of ChemBoxes, but it doesnt work for me. Maybe I will regret these harsh comments.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was waiting for more responses, but since there have not been any I will respond. Please delete the part of the code that is doing this. If there is a category needed then people can add them; I only did a BA in Chemistry many years ago, so I don't know what (if any) categories the reactions that use this box should go in. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I deleted the code that adds the category. I didn't change the documentation because I couldn't find a mention of the feature there. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)