Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

See also: Chemistry talk page, {{Chembox}} (talk).

Requested move for Alpha hydroxy acid

An editor has requested for Alpha hydroxy acid to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Alpha hydroxy acid, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Using new chemical formula text formatting

Across articles I've been updating formula formatting to use the new "\chem" style of formatting instead of just using plain text. Are there any issues with this? I've been doing this for a bit. ItzSwirlz (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel strongly against this. I think the <chem> style introduces inconsistency in the text that is not only entirely unnecessary, but is aesthetically very unpleasing. The {{chem2}} template is much better. Marbletan (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose the <chem> style for the reason given by Marbletan. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

should i revert my changes? ItzSwirlz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should revert them, since the format they are in now is much easier to convert to the chem2 template then what was previously there (with all the  tags). I've started changing some of them over already. Reconrabbit 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, if I stumble across any that I've done or text using those tags I'll move them to chem2. ItzSwirlz (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Provocation, semantics, truth, or just dumb?: Oceans do not contain sodium chloride

What should we say? --Smokefoot (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So if a solid is dissolved in a solvent, it isn't "contained" in the solvent? Reconrabbit 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Something I've thought about a lot: if you dissolved two different salts into water, like lithium chloride and sodium bromide, would it really make sense to say "the water contains lithium chloride and sodium bromide"? Since the salts are dissociated into Li⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, and Br⁻, the solution is the same as if you instead dissolved lithium bromide and sodium chloride. Instead you should say it contains lithium ions, sodium ions, chloride ions, and bromide ions. So you can't go wrong by saying the ocean contains a lot of sodium ions and chloride ions (there are also many other ions in smaller concentrations). Michael7604 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Could it also be said at that point that the water contains sodium chloride, sodium bromide, lithium chloride, and lithium bromide? (I'm starting to think this is the kind of question that comes up on Stackexchange with some frequency...) Reconrabbit 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also think about what you would be left with if you boiled off the water. I think the resulting solid would be a salt containing a random mixture of Li⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, and Br⁻, maybe that could be called a mixture of LiCl, LiBr, NaCl, and NaBr (or maybe it would separate into four different crystalline domains of LiCl, LiBr, NaCl, and NaBr, dunno if this has been studied). Michael7604 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Double salt Michael7604 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont have any great answer. Evaporation of an aqueous solution made from NaCl and LiBr (no boiling required!) will give four products but their distribution will depend on solubility products and there will be a lot of doping as well. I was just wondering if editors think that we should "torture" readers with this aspect.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The English language doesn't always have the words we need to give a brief but perfect description. I think in those cases we should focus on readability. Facts are only good where they are useful, and for most discussions on seawater it is besides the point how the salt exists, we need only accept that it is there. Detailed descriptions can be added where needed. Project Osprey (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

See sea salt. What most non-chemists think of when they speak of "salt" is indeed sodium chloride to a chemist. The fact that the sea, and hence sea salt, contains a number of other ions is largely irrelevant. Quantitatively, most of the "salt" in the sea is NaCl. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hello, I have been cleaning up some of the earlier articles I had created (which are very poor in quality), and wanted to know if the articles below would be needed to deleted or redirected due to issues. It would be nice if people like @Smokefoot: could look at them.

• Ammonium selenide
• Actinium(III) iodide
• Manganese(II) chlorate

I also found very dubious articles that I hadn't made, so I'll list them below.

• Cobalt(II) chlorate
• Gold phosphide
• Caesium phosphide
• Manganese(V) fluoride (is this notable?)

Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 04:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont have any particular authority here except as an inorganicker, and several of these aren't worthwhile. We can deal with them on their Talk pages. As other editors are noted, it is often unclear why these articles were created. I guess that they do little harm except that they diminish the reputation of Wiki-Chem as a source of reliable info.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

These articles are lacking Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds which may be useful for finding these in the future. Azinamine? Reconrabbit 16:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1,2-Dichloroethene#Requested move 26 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1,2-Dichloroethene#Requested move 26 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Trinitrotoluene has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trinitrotoluene has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Olympiadane

If anyone is looking to get a WP:DYK under their belt, then may I present to you Olympiadane. It needs work but it could be gotten ready in time for the Paris Olympics Project Osprey (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MAINISOTOPE

What's the status of the discussion on MOS:MAINISOTOPE? It got archived without any box closing it. In [1] I assumed the discussion was inconclusive. 184.147.229.55 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for something to do? Try PFAS

As many know, C6-C10 perfluorinated carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids are in the news. They are "everywhere chemicals". One can be sure that these articles are consulted often. Here is the hierarchy of that set of articles (people are welcome to edit this list).

• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 158 kbyte (241 refs)
  • Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids 7.6
    • Perfluoropropionic acid 4.8
    • Perfluorobutanoic acid 5.6
    • Perfluorooctanoic acid 129
    • Perfluorononanoic acid 18
      • Ammonium perfluorononanoate 3.5
    • Perfluorodecanoic acid 25
    • FRD-903 5.7 (a branched PFAS)

• • Perfluorosulfonic acids 4.6
    • Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid 2
    • Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 9
      • Nonaflate 1 (perfluorobutanesulfonate)
    • Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 19
    • Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 54
      • Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride 16
    • Perfluoro(4-ethylcyclohexane)sulfonic acid 3

These articles cover semi-complicated chemistry plus extensive health claims plus regulatory issues (often too US-focused, it seems) plus a dash of scare talk. A core issue is that PFAS might be everywhere, but in very low concentrations, and toxicity vs concentration correlations are challenging.

One also can imagine that many of these articles are an accretion of years of editing with no chopping. Maybe somehow we should try to shunt readers to PFAS, the master and make the others just simple discussions of the basic chem of that compound (kinda straightforward). My point is that PFAS would benefit from some serious editing. To some extent the article is overwhelmed with references, which might detract. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a topic worthy of improvement, but it's a big job. Even the main PFAS article isn't in great shape (to my eyes at least) - for a page about chemicals there's little discussion of the chemistry: how it's made, or what it goes into, or why. The use of PFAS as a processing aid in blown film extrusion isn't mentioned at all, despite that often being a food contact material. Structure searching shows that we have 637 pages with a -CF₂- group, 532 with -CF₃. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey (talk • contribs)

While I agree that some of these articles would merit improvements including shortening and better refs (e.g. Perfluorodecanoic acid), I strongly oppose the proposal. While PFASs share some common properties, such as the persistence of the perfluoroalkyl moiety, the universe of PFASs spans from gases to polymers, from surfactants to plant protection products and pharmaceuticals. They are also very different in terms of regulatory, health and environmental aspects. Would you also propose a similar strategy for alkanes, alcohols or PAHs?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances can provide an overview also on regulatory, health or environmental aspects, but substance-specific information need to be kept in the individual articles.

BTW: Here and here you propose to "proposed to be stripped of most regulatory, health, environmental aspects". However, several of the listed chemicals (e.g. Perfluoropropanesulfonic acid, Perfluoropropionic acid, ) do contain no or little such information. --Leyo 23:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of a process aimed at helping readers by unifying info into a reliable source. My impression is that the main public concerns for "everywhere chemicals" are not about gases or polymers. My impression also is that the persistence and regulatory issues mainly pertain to C8-ish carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids. But have it your way, dude. Status quo.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode

B/W structural formulas are hardly visible in the dark mode, e.g. in Propane. Is this issue only with me? 162.23.30.48 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's everywhere. I can't see a simple site wide solution, other than switching back to light mode. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Standard view

Using "class=skin-invert-image"

"class=skin-invert-image" could help => test using dark mode 162.23.30.48 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like some infobox images with transparent background get automatic white background but others do not. In propane, the skeletal is fine but the other three are not. In that infobox, it's a difference of SVG (handled reasonably: skeletal) vs PNG (bad result: explicit, ball&stick, vdW). But it seems neither specific to chembox nor generally differential for these file-formats. At glucose, some PNG with transparent-bg in other article sections look good and others bad. Caveat: I'm using ?withgadget=dark-mode to test based on the gadget using a non-darkmode browser, not the 'real' dark-mode. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)