Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

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

Article alerts

Articles for deletion 14 Jul 2026 – Free-radical reaction (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by FaviFake (t · c); see discussion (5 participants) 25 Jun 2026 – Macromolecular cages (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by FaviFake (t · c) was closed as merge by Thilio (t · c) on 02 Jul 2026; see discussion (5 participants) 22 Jun 2026 – Lactosylceramide alpha-2,3-sialyltransferase (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mausfield (t · c) was closed as merge by OwenX (t · c) on 30 Jun 2026; see discussion (4 participants; relisted) 21 Jun 2026 – TL-599 (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by GrinningIodize (t · c) was closed as keep by OwenX (t · c) on 29 Jun 2026; see discussion (2 participants) 18 Jun 2026 – Makim Nikitin (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Ldm1954 (t · c) was closed as delete by Premeditated Chaos (t · c) on 03 Jul 2026; see discussion (5 participants; relisted) 17 Jun 2026 – Lanthanide trichloride (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by FaviFake (t · c) was closed; see discussion (1 participant) 17 Jun 2026 – Methane (data page) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by OzmoOzmo (t · c) was closed as keep by Geschichte (t · c) on 02 Jul 2026; see discussion (8 participants; relisted) 15 Jun 2026 – Purnell equation (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Vetrenarisisum (t · c) was closed as merge by CactusWriter (t · c) on 22 Jun 2026; see discussion (4 participants) 15 Jun 2026 – Yuan Ping (scientist) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mariamnei (t · c) was closed as delete by OwenX (t · c) on 01 Jul 2026; see discussion (9 participants; relisted) 11 Jun 2026 – Department of Chemistry, University of York (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Flyingphoenixchips (t · c) was closed as delete by CactusWriter (t · c) on 18 Jun 2026; see discussion (4 participants) (22 more...) Proposed deletions 13 Jul 2026 – Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c) was deleted 01 Jul 2026 – Half-Möbius electronic topology (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c) was deleted 10 Jun 2026 – MXene catalysis (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Ldm1954 (t · c) was deleted 27 May 2026 – Andrea Zitolo (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Jimjamjoe5 (t · c) was deproded by Cyclopia (t · c) on 27 May 2026 Categories for discussion 04 Jun 2026 – Category:Smelters (occupation) (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Johnpacklambert (t · c) was closed; see discussion 13 May 2026 – Category:Nature (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion Redirects for discussion 04 Jul 2026 – Colored fire (talk · edit · hist) →Fireworks was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion Miscellany for deletion 22 Jun 2026 – Portal:Chemistry/In the news (talk · edit · hist) MfDed by Metropolitan90 (t · c) was closed as delete by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 25 Jun 2026; see discussion Requested moves 06 Jun 2026 – List of Schedule 1 substances (CWC) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Pppery (t · c) was moved to Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (talk · edit · hist) by Jeffrey34555 (t · c) on 13 Jun 2026; see discussion 06 Jun 2026 – List of Schedule 3 substances (CWC) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Pppery (t · c) was moved to Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (talk · edit · hist) by Jeffrey34555 (t · c) on 13 Jun 2026; see discussion Articles to be merged 23 Jun 2026 – Macromolecular cages (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Organic molecular cages by Smokefoot (t · c) was closed; see discussion 23 Jun 2026 – Organic molecular cages (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Macromolecular assembly by Smokefoot (t · c) was closed; see discussion 16 Jun 2026 – Lanthanide trichloride (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Lanthanide chlorides by Smokefoot (t · c) was closed; see discussion Articles to be split 13 Dec 2025 – Residue (chemistry) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by KormiSK (t · c); see discussion 25 Sep 2025 – Pulp (paper) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Chickenpox4dinner (t · c); see discussion 16 Dec 2024 – Phosphinidene (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 20 Jul 2026 – Draft:Snake venom metalloproteinase (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by EthK34 (t · c) 14 Jul 2026 – Draft:Human Metabolome Project (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by PaperTempo (t · c) 09 Jul 2026 – Draft:3-Chloroaniline (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Vetrenarisisum (t · c) 27 Jun 2026 – Draft:Echinopines A and B (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Nilsusrl (t · c) 20 Jun 2026 – Draft:Basim Mohammed Saadi Al-Saadi (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mustafa Al-Saadi93 (t · c) 15 Jun 2026 – Draft:4-Oxo-TEMPO (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by GammaPlus2 (t · c) 04 Jun 2026 – Draft:Cantor alloys (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ~2026-19854-45 (t · c) 23 May 2026 – Draft:Barrett E. Rabinow (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Joshkugel (t · c) 13 May 2026 – Draft:VeloxChem (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) 02 May 2026 – Draft:Groupement Ampère (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by EPRlabeler (t · c) (25 more...)

Chemistry Article Rewrite

Hi 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

The 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

There 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, 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)

Could three studies be evidence of notability, per usual GNG requirements? SVG-image-maker (talk) 19:30, 14 July 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

Some 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)

Seeking to get a chemical structure illustrated

Hello 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

This 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

The 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)

Talk:Neptunium(IV) oxalate/GA1

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

ChemLibra ≠ RS

Especially 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

I 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"

Few 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)

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)

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

I 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

Hello. 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

Hi. 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)

Sublimation of ammonium chloride

In 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

• Hypoallergenic materials
• AV965
• Antarlide
• ABT-354

These 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)

Lithium-ion battery cleanup

I am planning to try and clean up the Lithium-ion battery article (currently around 10k words). Please feel to provide feedback here. Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is this discussion being held by editors with no track record in chem/biochemistry area? If one does not edit in some sort of molecular or chemical theme, leading such a discussion seems inappropriate. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Many new stub pages on "investigational drugs"

I noticed that many new stub chemistry pages have been created by Boghog; from the log I see 16 today and 50 (yes 50) in the last week. Is it really good to have so many stubs created that someone else has to improve (e.g. repair) and/or review? I am not going to review these, it is out of my competence, but I have to question this. N.B., some are classified under the Chemicals project. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any immediately obvious problem with it. I prefer a little more content when it comes to chemical stubs but there's nothing objectionable in these stubs from the few I've seen. Connecting them to Wikidata would be nice. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As a test, d:Q140473169 is now populated using {{infobox drug}} data from alnodesertib. Unfortunately there is limited use for this since only "P628 E number", "P2566 ECHA Substance Infocard ID", and "P3117 DSSTox substance ID / CompTox DTXSID" records from Wikidata can be imported back into the infobox. Other infoboxes like {{infobox gene}} can get all the data from wikidata. But this is currently not possible with the chembox and drugbox. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's possible for the infobox identifiers to be autofilled from Wikidata—many other language Wikipedias do this—it's just not enabled here for most items. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am someone who adds values to the infoboxes and add chemical categories, and sometimes do the NPP. I don't consider it a burden, but if there is a lot in one day, they can be edited later on. I think it is more important to have coverage of chemicals and drugs than second tier soccer players for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done - Wikidata pages for all 50 new drug stubs have now been added. Boghog (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

These {{pharma-stub}} primarily come under the umbrella of WP:PHARMA, but of course, as drugs are chemicals they also come under the scope of WP:CHEM. They all could be expanded, but what exactly needs repair? The main issues are likely the selection of the chemical categories which are tricky to assign and adding a few missing identifiers to the {{infobox drug}}, but these are errors of omission and don't require urgent fixes. Concerning expansion, please keep in mind that WP:THEREISNORUSH. I would also like to emphasize that I don't intend to produce any more drug stubs for the immediate future. Instead, I am now concentrating on improving these myself starting with deorphanization. I very much welcome, but don't expect others to improve these stubs, and I am actively trying to do this myself. Boghog (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Boghog, one of the problems is that all new pages need to be reviewed as part of WP:NPP. I see that a couple of them have already been reviewed by Mariamnei, who has asked you to expand them. While I have seen many new pages which are in far worse shape, it takes time for NPP reviewers to evaluate them and decide whether to draftify them for improvement, leave them, mark as reviewed or other. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a fan of very short articles on totally useless or ultra-esoteric compounds. They just add to the "curation burden", i.e. that many more articles that can go wrong somehow and required minding. Also, the additions encourage others to just add shitstuff - hey, why not 1-bromo-2-fluoro-3-nitroanthracene? What gives me pause is that Boghog is a valued member of our editing crew.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is nothing new. We have many articles (literally thousands) on early-stage drug candidates such as this set of new ones. Considering that ~90% of drugs that enter clinical trials are not successful, chances are that 90% of these types of articles will never have any meaningful content beyond "this drug is/was studied to treat X". I think most of them would not pass WP:GNG if considered objectively against the policy's wording, but precedence and inertia tend to override that. Marbletan (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably the most important issue is notability. All of these drug candidates have been assigned an INN and have entered at least phase 2 clinical trials which confers a certain amount of notability. Many but not all have been covered in secondary, published reviews. In retrospect, I should have selected only drug candidates that have entered phase 3 trials at which time coverage in review articles becomes almost certain. One thing I want to make absolutely clear: I will not expand articles beyond what reliable sources support. With respect to expansion, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is absolutely true that 90% of these drug candidates will never be approved for general use. Nevertheless, the data that these trials generate is still valuable as it tells you what doesn't work. It also changes scientific understanding, influences future drug development, and provides historical context. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Acetate vs acetic acid, propionate vs propionic, etc...

We or someone down the road will need to consider splitting some simple carboxylic acid articles. So, there is acetic acid, a big deal. And separately acetate, also a big deal, especially in biochemistry. This dichotomy does not exist for propionate, butyrate, and benzoate, which redirect to respectively to propionic acid, butyric acid, benzoic acid. These carboxylic acids are fully ionized anywhere close to pH 7, so the anions are expecially important. We also have sodium propionate, sodium butyrate, and sodium benzoate. No crisis but slightly messy.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Smokefoot We had this discussion in 2020: see WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#h-Carboxylic acids vs carboxylate anion/esters-2020-08-30T14:35:00.000Z. We concluded then that only acetate and formate should have their own separate articles, and we implemented a merger of the rest. Specific salts are OK if they meet GNG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Oxygen generating biomaterial, SYNTH?

Maybe I am too old critical, but to me Oxygen generating biomaterial looks like some major WP:SYNTH.

1. Is it realistic to consider CaO2 or perfluorocarbons in the context of a biomaterial?
2. The platforms section looks like a completely different page.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Overall the topic seems to be notable, eg Google scholar lists numerous sources Some of these do discuss percarbonate. I gather that the basic research challenge is to incorporate these compounds, which one would not normally associate with biology, into artificial structures, which where the "platforms" bit comes in. Since the artificial structures are not initially integrated with circulating oxygen, adjacent cells can die. Controlled release of artificial oxygen is the engineering solution. Maybe the article is a bit opaque on the basic points.

I agree that at least one of the sources is out of place:

Waite, Andrew James; Bonner, James S.; Autenrieth, Robin (May 1999). "Kinetics and Stoichiometry of Oxygen Release from Solid Peroxides". Environmental Engineering Science. 16 (3): 187–199. Bibcode:1999EEngS..16..187W. doi:10.1089/ees.1999.16.187.

This paper is about bioremediation and does not belong in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, there are a couple of other cases where the sources in my reading do not verify the content. In addition in the platforms section some of the descriptions look too much like OR to me. I think it is not ready for a WP:DYK nomination (there is one). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The article was created recently by User:Tityre1 as part of WP:GLAM/PoliMi/2026. I agree the topic is notable but like all articles, the present version could be improved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That classes pages are better than many, and the prof appears to know his Wikipedia. However, they all need checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Its garbage and synthesis (creation of a topic). Look at the first two refs, one is Frontiers... and the other is junky Cell Press with nobody-editors. That having been said, the article will never be wiped out. Life goes on.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not see that there enough structural issues for draftification? I posted here to get other opinions, and the comments are not strong enough to persuade me, or to justify my sending it to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton, Mike Turnbull, and Smokefoot:, one of the students in the class, Tityre1 is doing many edits to improve the article. If you have any suggestions please add them at Talk:Oxygen_generating_biomaterial. My opinion of this class is that the students are producing much higher quality work than many WikiEd programs, albeit not perfect (but who is?). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Good luck. Interacting with student projects has been frustrating for some of us. Instructors uninvolved, poor sources, lack of context = some of the issues. Maybe you are the homework whisperer. The main issue is that even PhD students operate at a level well below the usual team here. They think that they are elite, and maybe they are in some ways, but they arent. One irony is that WikiEd is under the impression that the homework projects are a tool for recruiting editors, but the sticking coefficient is low. Maybe I am too sour.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 17#Infoboxes for individual elements

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 17#Infoboxes for individual elements, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a proposal to subst: (and then delete) all the infoboxes for atomic elements into the individual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

At the TfD, I asked for a demo of how Hydrogen would appear after substituting {{Infobox hydrogen}}. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That has been done. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)