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, 57, 58, 59Auto-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 |
|---|
|
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
A-Class review
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
AI, again
editSeveral of editors are justifiably wary of AI written contributions. But here is a twist: AI proofreading. Might be useful.
My query this morning: "Could you proofread Polyethylene terephthalate for problems with English or clarity or redundancy?" Long response, some selections:
- " The phrase "thermoforming for manufacturing" is awkward; thermoforming is itself a manufacturing process, not a use-category"
Done - ""Color-conferring dyes can easily be formulated into PET sheet." — "Color-conferring" is unusual; standard phrasing would be "Colorants" or "Coloring dyes."" Done
- ""PET is hygroscopic and absorbs water." — "Hygroscopic" by definition means it absorbs water..." Done
- Summary of categories:
- Missing words ("formation acetaldehyde," missing article "a transesterification"): items 4, 13, 15
- Redundancy ("hygroscopic and absorbs water," "widely used…bottling"): items 8, 18
- Factual/terminological error (IV not dimensionless): item 12
- Awkward/unclear constructions: items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20
- Minor issues ("scarce information," "life-time," "recycling of PET"): items 5, 17
- Overall the article is competently written but shows the typical signs of Wikipedia articles edited piecemeal by many contributors — occasional dangling modifiers, inconsistent parallel structure in lists, and a few factual imprecisions in the technical prose."
To me, these remarks are useful. Of course one could ask AI app to delve more deeply, verifying relevance or quality of refs or even technical validity. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is a good use-case of AI as a tool, where it analyzes human-written and -cited content and proposes improvements for humans to consider how to implement. There was a recent (within the past few months, but not the past few weeks) item in Signpost or similar using this approach, with similarly useful results. DMacks (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Found it: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01/Recent research. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, the Signpost article and comments make clear that some smart people are way, way ahead of this issue, but appropriately focused on fact-checking (like claims not really supported by references, etc). In any case, take a look at this Talk:Polyethylene#AI proofreading report. Maybe the appropriate way to proceed is to generate such a report but not reproduce it on the Talk page.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Found it: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01/Recent research. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
AfC Draft Review Request: Dr. Russell B. Hodgdon Jr. (Polymer Chemist)
editHello. I have submitted an AfC draft for User:1jondreher/Dr. Russell B Hodgdon Jr.. He was a polymer chemist who developed the proton-exchange membranes (PEM) utilized in the NASA Gemini fuel cells. I have declared my COI on the draft's talk page. I am reaching out here because I would greatly appreciate it if an editor familiar with polymer chemistry or electrochemistry could review the sourcing (primarily NASA tech reports and Journal of Polymer Science) to ensure it meets the notability guidelines for scientists. Thank you. 1jondreher (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are there any publications that describe his role in the development of this technology besides a photograph of him and several of his patents? -- Reconrabbit 14:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229649992_Mechanisms_of_membrane_degradation Handbook of Fuel Cells – Fundamentals, Technology and Applications, Edited by Wolf Vielstich, Hubert A. Gasteiger, Arnold Lamm.Vo l u m e 3 : Fuel Cell Technology and Applications.2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 0-471-49926-9 1jondreher (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)"In addition to the patent record, Hodgdon's role in resolving the Gemini membrane degradation issue is documented in the Handbook of Fuel Cells (Vielstich et al., 2003, Vol 3), where the 'S-type' membrane (poly-α,β,β-trifluorostyrene sulfonic acid) is identified as the critical transition from the unstable PSSA membranes used in early Gemini missions. Furthermore, his 1968 publications in the Journal of Polymer Science (Part A-1, Vol 6) serve as the foundational chemical descriptions for this technology. These peer-reviewed academic and reference works establish his technical leadership independent of his role at GE."
- Hodgson is mentioned a single time in the Handbook of Fuel Cells. I would not call this in-depth coverage. -- Reconrabbit 13:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Try again not "hodgson" the correct spelling "hodgdon" 6 times 1jondreher (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- My bad. I see he's more extensively cited in chapter 49. -- Reconrabbit 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have updated the WIKI and included much more reference material. Showing his education. updated name to properly reflect Dr. Russell Bates Hodgdon Jr. Also added Selected publications
- Hodgdon, Russell B.; Boyack, James R. (1965). "Study of swelling in two new ion exchange membranes". Journal of Polymer Science Part A: General Papers. 3 (4): 1463–1472.
- Personal Details. Newspaper links to historical Facts. Please let me know if anything else is needed. 1jondreher (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- My bad. I see he's more extensively cited in chapter 49. -- Reconrabbit 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Try again not "hodgson" the correct spelling "hodgdon" 6 times 1jondreher (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hodgson is mentioned a single time in the Handbook of Fuel Cells. I would not call this in-depth coverage. -- Reconrabbit 13:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Chemistry Article Rewrite
editHi all,
I’m proposing a rewrite of the Chemistry article. If you’re interested, go here.
Additional feedback and consensus would be appreciated.
Thanks, Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Magnesium and nub
editThe disambiguation page Nub lists "Nilunbium [sic!], a systematic name for magnesium".
- N is nil, or the digit 0. Leading 0s are omitted, so unbitrium is unbitrium (chemical symbol Ubt), not "nilunbitrium" (Nubt) or "nilnilunbitrium" (Nnubt). So its systematic symbol would be Ub (for 12), rather than Nub (for 012).
- Even then, not all systematic symbols can be used backwards. For example, P is phosphorus (element 15), not boron (element 5, symbol B), and B is element 5, not 2 (which is He). Then He is element 2, not 69 (Tm).
Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why not ask @Oreocooke who added it to the disambiguation page 1 year ago today? -- Reconrabbit 19:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- responding to the valid claim on some systematic symbols conflicting with non-systematic ones: i think the nil-padding takes care of that. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 19:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just delete that entry, it is not a thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- The assumption is that any systematic name for an element would be three digits, so there would be no overlap with existing symbols. Boron is Nnp, Helium is Nnb, Phosphorus is Nup... Thus the need for 0 as nil. -- Reconrabbit 20:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- If we're speaking in assumptions, the assumption is that systematic names for elements are only needed when no official name has been agreed upon. Describing a reaction as something like "the nilnilhexothermic reduction of nilbibium dinilniloctide with dinilunseptium produces nilbibium tetranilunseptide and nilnilhexium mononilniloctide" is a hell I had never conceived of before today. New meta for the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, I suppose?
- The ability to construct a name from systematic rules does not make that name notable. Do we need to add eka-aluminium to Ea (disambiguation)? There's at least evidence that was used in (rather significant) literature! Fishsicles (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since you are possibly the second person to ever type out the term "nilbibium" I don't think this is an accepted way to go about things by any authority. -- Reconrabbit 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
List of fragrance compounds
editThere is a new page List of fragrance compounds created by DanyMations who rejected a prior draftification by Significa liberdade. Almost every entry is a redlink, of the three sources one is a paper on work-related asthma while other two are wikilinks to International Flavors & Fragrances#List of fragrance ingredients and Fragrance compound. This looks to me like a fairly obvious AfD for multiple reasons, but I thought I would ask here for comments first, particularly to explore if a more experienced editor feels the list merits repair and is willing to work on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is it not allowed to use Wikipedia links as citations? They are tertiary sources, so what's the issue? And if there is an issue, is it best to reference each category link, such as https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=amber (for amber scents), https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=citrus (for citrus scents), and so on?
- Thanks! DanyMations (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page, as this is a technical editing question as against the question of whether the current list passes any of WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia articles are user generated content and are consequently not reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- The value I would see in this page is as a place to put the existing list from the main fragrance compound page, which currently {{main}}links this page despite it having less information and no organisation. What information exists in the table should be draftified and integrated into that scheme.
- Further, the large number of redlinked trade names raises my WP:PROMOTION hackles; I don't know what "Floral Super" is, but I doubt that's what its PubChem page is called. All of the page's sources are the catalogues of R&D firms in the fragrance industry, which doesn't even pass my low bar for WP:PRIMARY reporting on compounds. Fishsicles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response,
- Is it best to use PubChem names as the title of such article? I can change the name of Floral Super to 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal per PubChem,[1] as well as any other chemical.
- Also, per WP:PRIMARY policy 3, it states that straightforward facts, such as the existence of a compound and its characteristics, can be from primary sources. DanyMations (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned with existence being established by primary sources, I'm concerned with establishing notability. It is a vested interest of these companies to showcase as many compounds as possible, because that makes them appear more productive to investors. "We made a new compound" is chemically very simple, and the standards of "new" are often "we stuck a superfluous methyl on it"; more significant in determining coverage is if there's analysis of the usage of a compound.
- I only really know fragrances insomuch as students spray them in poorly ventilated classrooms and asphyxiate me; how documented are their compositions? Is there a regulatory list akin to E numbers that could be a source for a listing? That would at least suggest some level of review outside the manufacturer's marketing team. I'd even be willing to consider some kind of industry awards, if they documented why a specific compound was worth highlighting. Fishsicles (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply.
- So, for Floral super, would this study regarding its toxicity make the compound notable?
- https://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/71077-31-1.pdf
- If so, can any scientific study regarding a fragrance compound make such a compound notable? DanyMations (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- One study is not evidence of notability. Any known compound has a study that shows it exists by definition, and anything in consumer goods ought to have a few more that suggest they're safe for human use. Of more interest would be a literature review that establishes a wider field of substantial research into a compound.
- For consumer goods like fragrances, I think they key question is of production volume. If they're only making a couple tonnes a year, it probably doesn't merit an article unless it's been in the headlines. Fishsicles (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
References
- It is best not to use brand names, unless that is by far the most used name, including in scientific literature. So better to use a systematic name if there is no common name. On whether the list exists, see if you can find books or papers that have such lists of fragrance compounds. Databases devoted to the topic may show notability, but if the company is trying to sell the product, then it is not independent. For content of an article on a fragrance, if all you can say it is a fragrance, it does not justify an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- My main thought with the use of brand names is balancing two issues:
- Pages on compounds should be about the compound, not specific formulations from specific manufacturers: the main page is methylphenidate, not Ritalin or Concerta
- Pages should have names that reasonably fit on someone's screen: Allura Red AC, not "disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfonatophenyl)diazenyl]naphthalene-2-sulfonate".
- My thought is to use brand-agnostic common names as are common in pharmaceuticals (often derived from systematic names, not always IUPAC; e.g. para-acetamidophenol -> paracetamol), followed by systematic names of reasonable length. In the absence of either, use a brand name if you can establish notable usage of the name in secondary literature. My absolute lowest bar is brand names as used in regulatory documents, which is why I'll settle for furrowing my brow and grumbling at Allura Red AC; is it better known as Red 40 or E129? Probably, but those are defined as synonyms for that specific brand name, and I'd prefer using a brand name than elevating USA or EU regulators over each other. That said, if your most notable source for using a name is the regulatory document, there should be significant secondary coverage to establish notability of the compound, as if the most notable independent references you can find are regulatory paperwork, I'd raise serious WP:GNG questions. Fishsicles (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can see that this is well intentioned, but the IFRA list is over 3600 entries long. That is too long to be of practical use. Cross-referencing against the ECHA registry cuts this down to ~1200 chemicals (removing various extracts, tinctures and other complex natural mixtures). Limiting these further to those used in quantities greater than 100 tons per year in the EU gives a list of 413 entries. It can be found Here. There are many red listed articles, some aren't suitable for wikipedia but other are. They would be a fine place to start if you wanted into increase our content on the topic.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for assembling this list. I have cleaned up some of the links and sorted out a few more mixtures from compounds, though I'm sure there's some more alternate names etc to be found by a finer comb. Fishsicles (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Title naming conventions of arene substitution patterns
editSome articles fully spell out the type of substitution (e.g. para-Methoxyamphetamine), while others use a single letter (e.g. p-Dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde). Is there a naming convention? RajanD100 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- SeeWikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Capitalization of elements and compounds which says that names should be written without abbreviations. so para- not p-. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with that read of the conventions. Per the linked section,
- The names of elements and other chemicals should be written without abbreviations and treated as common nouns.
- Prefixes that are [sic] such as sec-, tert-, ortho-, meta-, para-, α-, β-, D-, L-, (+)-, (−)-, (R)-, (S)- and the numerical prefixes are not considered part of the name
- The subsequent section at WP:CHEMPREFIX notes
- Article titles for compounds and related topics should reflect how the compound name is commonly written
- I would say that this says either convention is acceptable, contingent on whichever form is more widely used. A quick Google Scholar turns up ~206,000 results for p-xylene and only 13200 for para-xylene; the Wikipedia page uses the abbreviated p-Xylene. I'd say when in doubt, copy CAS or PubChem - though in this case that'd mean moving both, as they use "p-methoxyamphetamine" and "4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde". Fishsicles (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with that read of the conventions. Per the linked section,
Seeking to get a chemical structure illustrated
editHello all, I'm looking to get a drawing of Brevetoxin B5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetlet.2003.10.124) for an article I'm working on. Where would be the best place to request something such as this? I did see "WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request: Revision history", but that appears to be abandoned. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Would File:Brevetoxin B5.svg work, or would you prefer a specific style or orientation? Wostr (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh wow that's perfect! Thank you so much, I didn't expect such a quick response. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
chemicalland21.com
editThis website, which is used as a reference in many chemistry articles, is apparently defunct. The web address has been usurped or hijacked by a sketchy-looking website. I think external links to this website (both when in an "External links" section and when used as a reference) should be removed. I know this can be done using the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations, but it's a big task to do manually because there are currently 150 articles that use chemicalland21.com (Search results). Is there an easier or automated way to deal with this? Marbletan (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- I just noticed Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests, which seems to deal with issues such as this, and made a report there. Marbletan (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like there are many cases where this source shouldn't be replaced wholesale. It looks more like a commerical site to buy and sell chemicals with some brief encyclopedia entries. If the information there can't be verified elsewhere it may as well get removed. On Boron, I removed where it was citing "boric acid is used in swimming pool treatments"; other text from the source read It can be used for skin cooking sensation due to good thermal conductivity. It is also known boron compounds made with all 10B isotope selectively destroy cancer cell. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- If you come up with a recipe that can be applied with automation, I can help with the application. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think External-links links can simply be removed. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- I have removed ~20 that were used solely as external links. I think those that now remain are used as references. Marbletan (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Improve Richard P. Van Duyne please
editThe page Richard P. Van Duyne is a stub that could do with some improvements. I published some with him so it would be a bit close to COI for me. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- You could always make an edit request on the article's talk page. The hard bit is finding useful sources, which you may be aware of. Even WP:ABOUTSELF sources would help, as he already passes WP:NACADEMIC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- An edit request which is a 60+% expansion is a bit much to ask; I have seen those get bounced. There are a stack of orbits on him so siurces are not that hard to find. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Would anybody be willing to help me spotcheck this GA? I tried to do it myself, but I couldnt figure out anything the sources were saying. I took it up intentionally not knowing about chemistry, so an average person could understand the article, but I didnt consider that I wouldnt understand any of the sources. :/ Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- This might be a better question for WP:WikiProject Chemicals. I'm pretty sure WP Chemistry is for chemistry concepts and WP Chemicals is for the chemical compounds themselves.
- UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 21:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- alrighty, thanks Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Three topics for comments
editChemLibra ≠ RS
editEspecially by homeworkers, I see citations to ChemLibre. Its a textbook on fairly classical topics in chemistry, written by professionals it seems (authors are indicated), more polished than our stuff but by the same token not nearly as scholarly (IMHO) and includes no references. My worry is that it does not meet our standard as an reliable source (RS). Is there consensus that it is not RS? Perhaps on our project page or MOS, this "banned source" could be mentioned (or maybe it does "blacklist" it, but I missed the notice).
MDPI
editI noticed that user:Zefr, who is a forceful and knowledgeable editor (IMHO), removed citations to MDPI articles. So, I take it that that is the law of the land? Also some Frontiers articles. Perhaps on our project page or MOS these "banned sources" could be mentioned (maybe I missed them).
Reminder: we do have a "Things you can do"
editFew editors seem to contribute to Portal:Chemistry/Things you can do by addressing needs or adding chores. This note is intended to remind editors that this list exists if you're looking for things to do or want to complain about articles you read here. I wish that the WikiEd overlords would direct homeworkers to these tasks.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do not consider MDPI to be a reputable publisher based upon my experience with then as a reviewer. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- The official stance on WP:MDPI is "no consensus": last reviewed in 2021. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding from people in a few fields is that MDPI journals have varying editorial and review standards, but that MDPI corporate has no interest in enforcing or homogenising them, with sporadic instances of proper review being used as barrage balloons for a general lack of it across the company. I would think it fair to use them as a source for basic facts (e.g. I recently cited them for "acetic anhydride can acetylate citrate esters"), but to steer clear of any of the primary claims of their papers - and to use {{better source needed}} in any case. Fishsicles (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- The official stance on WP:MDPI is "no consensus": last reviewed in 2021. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- ChemLibre requires case-by-case analysis. See my comments last time we discussed it. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, some ChemLibre articles are... not good, to say the least. Example:
- UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 14:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- News to me that all the actinides form binary compounds, also, that Americium is "a slivery, ductile and very malleable". -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- The main reason why I dislike this source is because it contradicts itself at several spots. "Thorium only shows the +4 oxidation state. It shows the +2 and +3 oxidation states..." "Plutonium's halides are only in the +3 and +4 oxidation states, but here's a halide in the +6 oxidation state..." Also straight up false info, like "Es2O3 is a halide" or "Solid PuF6 is not known"
- This is a bit off-topic though. The point is that not all ChemLibre articles are reliable.
- UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- News to me that all the actinides form binary compounds, also, that Americium is "a slivery, ductile and very malleable". -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Notability, our number one criteria, can be established by citation counts or author reputation as well as by the review standards of a publisher. MDPI is a small step above arXiv.org and comparable to a conference proceedings. I would argue against a newly published MDPI article from an unknown author just like I would for arXiv. A MDPI with 130 citations (not counting the authors) is a sign that the field considers the article notable and so should we. On the direction, a newly published article in Nature or PRL is notable (not correct or necessarily encyclopedic, but notable and reviewed by experts). Johnjbarton (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect of Materials
editI have suggested a redirect of Materials at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material (2nd nomination); I am cross-posting here for comments as many aspects of MSE are within the Wikipedia Chemistry Project. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Review request for a COI edit request at Talk:Gustavo Scuseria
editHello. First, a disclosure: I have a conflict of interest, as I am the subject of the article Gustavo Scuseria, a computational chemist at Rice University. I have posted an edit request on the article's talk page listing well-sourced factual corrections and additions — updated professional roles, recent major awards (including the 2024 American Physical Society Aneesur Rahman Prize and the WATOC Schrödinger Medal), corrected editorship and society positions, current citation figures, and a brief scientific-contributions paragraph. Every item cites an independent secondary source.
The request is sitting in the general COI backlog. Since the article is within this project's scope, I would be grateful if an uninvolved editor familiar with the subject area could review it when time permits:
Talk:Gustavo Scuseria#Requested edits from article subject (May 2026)
Thank you. Fpscientist (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Naming a chemical compound
editHi. I am not good in chemistry. But I am trying to figure out naming the chemical compound ZrF4−
8. I am asking because of Talk:Biaugmented triangular prism/GA1, where I am wholeheartedly trying to make the reading in a less technical as possible, particularly in Biaugmented triangular prism § Application. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- That would be octafluorozirconate(IV).
- UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- As zirconium is mostly in +4 oxidation state it could also be written octafluorozirconate. Maybe I will get around to writing an article one year. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Or maybe create a redirect article to Octafluoride, and expand the section? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- As zirconium is mostly in +4 oxidation state it could also be written octafluorozirconate. Maybe I will get around to writing an article one year. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Sublimation of ammonium chloride
editIn Ammonium chloride § Reactions, the article text says, Ammonium chloride appears to sublime upon heating but actually reversibly decomposes into ammonia and hydrogen chloride gas
. The given source says that it sublimes readily, and in the process dissociates
. This inconsistency was flagged on the Talk page in 2012, but no one replied or did anything about it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Does this look good?
- UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, but I'm not a chemist, so don't take that as definitive. :-) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Articles in need of attention
editThese articles have verification and factuality issues and will be nominated for deletion if they don't get picked up. If anyone wants to save them, go ahead NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)